Feb. 3, 2026

The Epstein Emails: Why Peter Attia's Response Failed

This week, Molly breaks down Peter Attia’s public response after his name appears more than 1,700 times in recently released Epstein-related documents. The documents include emails and calendar references tying Attia to Jeffrey Epstein over multiple years. While the files do not allege Attia participated in Epstein’s criminal sexual conduct, the relationship and tone of the correspondence raise serious questions about judgment, proximity to power, and credibility.

Attia, a high-profile longevity figure with a paid membership and major online influence, posted a statement on X that he says was originally written to his staff and shared with patients. Molly walks through the statement nearly line by line to show why a response that leans on legal framing and denial language can fail to meet the public’s real concern, which is moral discernment and ethical boundaries.

In this episode

Who Peter Attia is and why his credibility is core to his brand
What it means to be referenced 1,700 times in the Epstein files
The reputational problem of sustained contact after Epstein’s 2008 conviction
Why using one internal letter for public consumption can backfire
The danger of treating a values crisis like a facts-only crisis
How denials and courtroom-style phrasing can read as calculated
Why intent and explanation rarely repair trust on their own
The spillover effect occurs when the public starts scrutinizing everything else
The bottom line lesson for anyone building a reputation online

Want More Behind the Breakdown?
Follow The PR Breakdown with Molly McPherson on Substack for early access to podcast episodes, private member chats, weekly live sessions, and monthly workshops that go deeper than the mic. It is the inside hub for communicators who want real strategy, clear judgment, and a little side-eye where it counts.

Follow Molly on Substack
Subscribe to Molly's Weekly Newsletter
Subscribe to Molly's Live Events Calendar.

Need a Keynote Speaker? Drawing from real-world PR battles, Molly delivers the same engaging stories and hard-won crisis insights from the podcast to your live audience. Click here to book Molly for your next meeting.

Follow & Connect with Molly:

00:00 - Why Peter Attia Is In The Headlines

02:40 - Credentials, Career Pivots, And Perception

06:40 - The Epstein Emails Surface

10:40 - Why The Backlash Hits Harder

13:45 - Reading The Response Letter

21:30 - Legal Framing Versus Moral Judgment

28:30 - The “Fresh Shipment” Exchange Dissected

WEBVTT

00:00:06.719 --> 00:00:13.759
Well, another week and another batch of Epstein files for everyone to scour.

00:00:14.000 --> 00:00:15.679
I have to highlight one of those stories.

00:00:15.759 --> 00:00:25.199
Not that I like spending a lot of time in the Epstein files, but I like looking at the responses because there are so many things that we can learn about crisis response.

00:00:25.359 --> 00:00:33.920
This week on the PR breakdown, Peter Atia, a credibility crisis in real time.

00:00:34.240 --> 00:00:36.240
Who is Peter Atia?

00:00:36.640 --> 00:00:38.399
He is a longevity doctor.

00:00:38.640 --> 00:00:42.880
He has a membership where you can pay$19 a month.

00:00:43.119 --> 00:00:47.359
He graduated from Stanford University School of Medicine in 2001.

00:00:47.600 --> 00:00:51.679
He also studied general surgery at Johns Hopkins Hospital.

00:00:51.840 --> 00:00:53.759
So there is definitely medical training.

00:00:53.920 --> 00:00:56.560
However, he did not complete it.

00:00:56.719 --> 00:01:00.560
He did not get board certified as a doctor.

00:01:00.719 --> 00:01:11.840
He then spent two years as a surgical oncology fellow at the National Cancer Institute researching immune-based therapies for melanoma and regulatory T cells in cancer regression.

00:01:12.079 --> 00:01:14.560
So that's important and that's formidable.

00:01:14.719 --> 00:01:18.879
But he left net clinical training for management consulting.

00:01:19.040 --> 00:01:20.799
That is a hard pivot.

00:01:21.040 --> 00:01:32.640
So he went from medical work, being a doctor, to working in corporate risk and healthcare practices and later held a strategy role at Sapphire Energy.

00:01:33.120 --> 00:01:36.079
Do I judge the career trajectory?

00:01:36.319 --> 00:01:39.519
No, lots of people take twists and turns.

00:01:39.760 --> 00:01:46.799
But it's his ascension to being the internet's favorite doctor.

00:01:48.159 --> 00:01:53.439
There is a misclassification with him.

00:01:53.599 --> 00:01:56.400
People assume that he's a practicing doctor.

00:01:56.640 --> 00:02:07.200
I think he's been given a much greater platform simply because he's been riding on this perception that he's a practicing medical provider.

00:02:07.519 --> 00:02:10.400
What he is is an influencer.

00:02:10.639 --> 00:02:15.840
And he's an influencer who has all of his eggs in one basket.

00:02:16.000 --> 00:02:38.240
And right now, that basket has dropped on the cement and the eggs have smashed everywhere because there are over 1,700 mentions of Peter Atia in the Epstein files and emails, calendar entries and emails 2014 through 2018.

00:02:39.759 --> 00:02:47.280
Plenty of time for Peter Atia to know precisely who Jeffrey Epstein was, or at least what he was about.

00:02:48.159 --> 00:02:57.599
This medical provider who was featured on 60 Minutes, who was also weeks ago named one of the new CBS contributors.

00:02:57.759 --> 00:02:59.840
Let's just look at his response.

00:03:00.080 --> 00:03:09.840
Because frankly, the reason why I want to mention Peter Atia is because his crisis followed such an interesting arc because he is online than and so he has so many followers.

00:03:10.000 --> 00:03:13.520
That means a lot of people online were talking about him.

00:03:13.680 --> 00:03:19.520
A lot of medical doctors who also have an online presence talking about him.

00:03:19.759 --> 00:03:22.159
He came out with a response on X.

00:03:22.879 --> 00:03:30.240
He said that it was a letter that he wrote to his staff, and he essentially just shared the letter that he wrote to his staff.

00:03:30.400 --> 00:03:42.240
So let's read the letter and go through it almost line by line to see how Peter Atia is trying to weave his way through this crisis.

00:03:42.479 --> 00:03:54.319
So I don't want to spend too much time getting into the emails, but just for the sake of context, there's one chain of emails in 2015 with the subject line quote, got a fresh shipment.

00:03:54.479 --> 00:03:55.840
This is from Atiya.

00:03:56.719 --> 00:03:59.599
And there was a redacted photo.

00:03:59.680 --> 00:04:04.159
And then Epstein replies me too with a redacted photo.

00:04:04.400 --> 00:04:07.520
And then Atia responds, please tell me you found that pic.

00:04:07.919 --> 00:04:08.159
Okay.

00:04:08.879 --> 00:04:11.360
Who's referring to a fresh shipment?

00:04:11.599 --> 00:04:16.079
Since the photos are redacted, we don't know what that fresh shipment is.

00:04:17.120 --> 00:04:23.439
But Epstein attaching a photo of an adult woman makes it a little murky for him.

00:04:23.600 --> 00:04:30.399
Other emails include Atia saying he goes into quote, J-E withdrawal when I don't see him, end quote.

00:04:30.639 --> 00:04:33.680
So that's language that shows how close he was to Epstein.

00:04:33.839 --> 00:04:43.600
Another email shows Atia writing that, quote, the biggest problem with becoming friends with you is that your life is so outrageous, and yet I can't tell a soul.

00:04:44.160 --> 00:04:58.480
And the email that people are mostly associating ATA with regarding Epstein is Atia writing, quote, the P word, is indeed low carb, still awaiting results on gluten content, though.

00:04:58.720 --> 00:05:03.439
So clearly it's a sexual joke about women, it's demeaning.

00:05:03.600 --> 00:05:15.920
So why this isn't a gotcha moment for ATA and so many people talking about him, it's not just a bro selling supplements and selling membership and books.

00:05:16.480 --> 00:05:21.920
He is selling his framework of reputation and decision making.

00:05:22.160 --> 00:05:30.160
His pitch is all about longevity, about the long term, how what you do in the short term pays off in the long term.

00:05:30.319 --> 00:05:32.720
You have to optimize for what matters.

00:05:32.959 --> 00:05:46.480
Yet his emails show years of casual comfort with a man whose 2008 public conviction is on the record.

00:05:47.040 --> 00:05:49.199
That's over 10 years.

00:05:49.920 --> 00:06:00.399
When you add the other layer of the reputation, I call it reputation spillover, is the fact that people start digging and scrutinizing people who are involved in a crisis.

00:06:00.560 --> 00:06:03.120
Particularly people are saying, well, who's this ATIA guy?

00:06:03.279 --> 00:06:07.680
Or people who love ATIA and follow ATIA go, well, wait a minute, what's this about?

00:06:07.839 --> 00:06:08.639
I love this guy.

00:06:08.800 --> 00:06:15.360
And then they find out that he's not a board certified doctor, that he didn't complete his residency.

00:06:15.920 --> 00:06:21.279
That also calls into question like why he is the internet's favorite doctor.

00:06:21.519 --> 00:06:26.639
So let's do a ruthless fair read of his email.

00:06:26.800 --> 00:06:29.439
I'm just gonna go chunk by chunk.

00:06:30.000 --> 00:06:33.279
As I mentioned, he posted this on X.

00:06:34.079 --> 00:06:37.199
He writes, the following email is what I sent my team last night.

00:06:37.360 --> 00:06:40.160
I sent a similar version to my patients also.

00:06:40.560 --> 00:06:42.959
So this is one letter, multiple uses.

00:06:43.199 --> 00:06:49.439
Quote, you've put your trust, your credibility, and your hard work into what we have built together.

00:06:49.920 --> 00:06:54.160
Where I'm gonna give him credit right off the bat is that he is writing a letter to his staff.

00:06:54.319 --> 00:06:55.279
Well, allegedly.

00:06:55.519 --> 00:07:05.120
When you are in a crisis, the first stakeholder you want to address, the employees, the internals, the people on the inside, the people who supported you.

00:07:05.360 --> 00:07:10.160
So if this first letter was to his internals, that was a good move.

00:07:10.319 --> 00:07:22.879
But then he took the same letter and instead of framing it for the public, he just said, I'm just gonna use the same thing to show how empathetic of a boss that I am.

00:07:23.040 --> 00:07:26.879
So every goodwill that I gave him, I'm taking most of it back.

00:07:27.439 --> 00:07:35.759
The problem with that first line is that it centers his project, his ecosystem first.

00:07:36.560 --> 00:07:45.279
In a scandal adjacent to Epstein, audiences up front want to know, they want to understand moral clarity.

00:07:45.439 --> 00:07:46.959
They want to know about harm.

00:07:47.120 --> 00:07:52.720
They want to understand about boundaries, they want to know facts immediately.

00:07:53.040 --> 00:07:58.000
My framework, the indestructible PR framework, own it, explain it, promise it.

00:07:58.319 --> 00:07:59.600
That's not what he did.

00:07:59.759 --> 00:08:03.120
His first line is about him.

00:08:03.920 --> 00:08:05.040
It's about him.

00:08:05.360 --> 00:08:09.519
So then he says, and I take that responsibility seriously.

00:08:09.839 --> 00:08:14.800
So the problem here is that it's a claim without proof.

00:08:15.279 --> 00:08:20.480
I take this seriously, and crisis communication is just wallpaper.

00:08:20.720 --> 00:08:30.959
If the audience could ask, if you took this seriously, why were you emailing Jeffrey Epstein like that and staying close to Jeffrey Epstein?

00:08:31.199 --> 00:08:34.720
Why did it take you a couple days to even send this email?

00:08:34.960 --> 00:08:40.159
Next line quote, you deserve a complete and honest account of what did and did not happen.

00:08:40.320 --> 00:08:43.200
So already we're getting the framing.

00:08:43.519 --> 00:08:45.840
He's letting us know that he wants to be honest.

00:08:46.000 --> 00:08:49.840
And for people listening to the audio podcast, I have air quotes right there.

00:08:50.240 --> 00:09:01.919
He's now making a move that many people in a crisis, particularly one that they're trying to claw their way out of when they don't want to be fully transparent.

00:09:02.320 --> 00:09:08.240
They start to spend time on the specific, the micro specifics where they can.

00:09:08.480 --> 00:09:16.559
Because if they're micro-specific in certain areas, then they hope that spreads to the entire crisis.

00:09:16.720 --> 00:09:19.519
But nowadays people are a lot smarter than that.

00:09:19.759 --> 00:09:25.039
And the problem is that it tees up like a courtroom style narrative.

00:09:25.360 --> 00:09:26.480
Did this happen?

00:09:26.720 --> 00:09:28.240
This didn't happen.

00:09:28.559 --> 00:09:32.639
It's as if he's preparing to litigate the issue.

00:09:32.879 --> 00:09:36.960
So if he were in a court of law, that might be fine.

00:09:37.279 --> 00:09:45.759
But it lands very cold, legalese, and also very calculated reputationally.

00:09:45.840 --> 00:09:48.559
So right off the bat, it's not working for him.

00:09:48.960 --> 00:09:56.879
We finally get after a couple lines, an apology, but it's it's an apology disguised as humility.

00:09:57.039 --> 00:10:02.159
Quote, I apologize that I did not get this out sooner, but I want to be thorough.

00:10:02.799 --> 00:10:07.440
So the thorough is his way of saying, I want to be honest right away.

00:10:07.519 --> 00:10:11.039
But what's most important here is the truth.

00:10:11.519 --> 00:10:14.480
But the truth is most important to Peter Utia.

00:10:14.799 --> 00:10:20.320
What he really wants to know is how much damage is all of this going to cause me.

00:10:20.480 --> 00:10:22.080
That's all he's looking for.

00:10:22.720 --> 00:10:30.559
The thorough, and also thorough can be a trap because the longer you talk, the more seams people can pick at.

00:10:31.039 --> 00:10:42.240
And the more thorough you are seems like overlawyering or legalese or specifics where people are just assuming that you're covering in other areas.

00:10:43.279 --> 00:10:49.440
Next, quote, the purpose of the DOJ releasing these documents is clear.

00:10:49.600 --> 00:10:49.919
Okay.

00:10:50.320 --> 00:10:56.559
The problem, he's positioning himself as an authority on the DOJ intent.

00:10:56.960 --> 00:10:58.159
That looks like spin.

00:10:58.399 --> 00:10:59.039
How would he know?

00:10:59.120 --> 00:11:00.559
He doesn't work for the DOJ.

00:11:00.799 --> 00:11:09.759
Also, he's narrowing the conversation there to criminal categories because it's a place where he knows he can separate himself.

00:11:10.320 --> 00:11:13.919
He's saying right away the framing, Epstein, he's criminal.

00:11:14.000 --> 00:11:15.120
That's not me.

00:11:15.519 --> 00:11:20.639
But Atia does hear what a lot of people do in a crisis when at the center of it.

00:11:21.600 --> 00:11:25.919
They're responding to where the fury isn't.

00:11:26.320 --> 00:11:29.120
The public scorn are the emails.

00:11:29.200 --> 00:11:33.840
It's not worrying about Peter Atia being a criminal.

00:11:34.480 --> 00:11:40.960
Next, quote, to identify individuals who participated in criminal activity, enabled it, or witnessed it.

00:11:41.200 --> 00:11:44.559
Again, it's an artificially tight box.

00:11:44.799 --> 00:11:54.480
The audience, his followers are judging him morally, his boundaries, his taste, his discernment, his power chasing.

00:11:54.639 --> 00:11:56.799
At least that's what I'm judging him on.

00:11:57.039 --> 00:11:58.480
His social complicity.

00:11:58.639 --> 00:12:02.879
So he's framing the crisis only as criminal involvement.

00:12:03.039 --> 00:12:06.000
So people hear, oh, I'm not a criminal.

00:12:06.159 --> 00:12:06.720
I'm fine.

00:12:06.799 --> 00:12:07.759
Everything's good here.

00:12:08.000 --> 00:12:09.600
That's not how trust works.

00:12:09.840 --> 00:12:11.039
That's not how it works.

00:12:11.200 --> 00:12:16.000
Quote, I'm not in any of those categories, and there's no evidence to the contrary.

00:12:16.320 --> 00:12:16.639
Okay.

00:12:17.759 --> 00:12:19.200
Okay, Peter Atia.

00:12:20.159 --> 00:12:21.919
It's not a legal filing.

00:12:22.080 --> 00:12:22.399
Okay.

00:12:22.559 --> 00:12:24.480
This isn't human reckoning.

00:12:24.799 --> 00:12:27.440
But what you're doing is you're inviting the challenge here.

00:12:27.600 --> 00:12:35.759
Okay, there's no evidence of criminal activity, but one, it may make people want to look for some.

00:12:35.840 --> 00:12:43.519
So some journalists, not at CBS, might want to look for some more, could be tempting to journalists or internet sleuths out there.

00:12:43.840 --> 00:12:48.159
But again, he's deflecting and throwing a big red herring out there.

00:12:48.320 --> 00:12:50.240
But I think the internet's wiser than that.

00:12:50.480 --> 00:12:52.559
Okay, so now he's going into the denials.

00:12:52.639 --> 00:13:03.360
Quote Oftentimes, to be clear is the moment the credibility goes to die because it signals that he knows or wants people to be confused or suspicious.

00:13:03.440 --> 00:13:05.120
But he's saying, to be clear.

00:13:05.360 --> 00:13:09.360
Anyone who lies to you usually says to you, to be clear.

00:13:09.600 --> 00:13:13.120
Then he says, I was not involved in any criminal activity.

00:13:13.279 --> 00:13:15.360
Again, wrong battlefield.

00:13:15.519 --> 00:13:17.919
The question is not asking, did you commit crimes?

00:13:18.000 --> 00:13:22.320
It's why did you maintain a friendship and banter with a convicted sex offender?

00:13:22.639 --> 00:13:28.399
Two, my interactions with Epstein had nothing to do with the sexual abuse or exploitation of anyone.

00:13:28.639 --> 00:13:35.759
The problem had nothing to do with is an absolute skit audited, but it ignores the ethical concern.

00:13:35.919 --> 00:13:39.519
What does nothing to do with mean?

00:13:39.679 --> 00:13:45.039
And maybe you had nothing to do with it, but you're still morally compromised.

00:13:45.200 --> 00:13:47.440
And that's the problem that people are gonna have.

00:13:47.679 --> 00:13:53.519
Next, quote, I was never on his plane, never on his island, and never present at any sex parties.

00:13:53.759 --> 00:13:54.080
Okay.

00:13:54.720 --> 00:13:58.240
Classic deny the headline move.

00:13:58.960 --> 00:14:15.039
Honestly, it can help because it structures him away from the bad, the really bad parts about Epstein, because no one wants evidence of them being in the room like an Andrew Mountbatten Windsor.

00:14:15.120 --> 00:14:16.559
The photographs of him.

00:14:16.799 --> 00:14:19.120
That is damning beyond belief.

00:14:19.360 --> 00:14:25.440
He's trying to get out of that where he can, but it exists in emails.

00:14:25.519 --> 00:14:28.399
It's a subtle difference, but a huge one.

00:14:28.559 --> 00:14:33.120
My interactions with Epstein had nothing to do with the sexual abuse or exploitation of anyone.

00:14:33.360 --> 00:14:44.080
You can have nothing to do with the abuse, which people could easily believe, but you could still be morally compromised by Epstein, which people are likely going to believe.

00:14:44.240 --> 00:14:48.960
Quote, I was never on his plane, never on his island, and never present at any sex parties.

00:14:49.200 --> 00:14:51.600
Classic deny the headline move.

00:14:51.840 --> 00:14:54.639
People aren't judging Atia for where he went.

00:14:54.720 --> 00:14:59.120
They're judging him for why he stayed connected at all with Epstein.

00:15:00.000 --> 00:15:06.559
Quote, that said, I apologize and regret putting myself in a position where emails are now public.

00:15:07.279 --> 00:15:15.039
You're framing the harm as the emails becoming public, not the emails existing.

00:15:15.600 --> 00:15:21.200
You don't want to frame the people as a problem when you are the problem.

00:15:21.759 --> 00:15:25.519
Quote, some of them embarrassing, tasteless, indefensible.

00:15:26.240 --> 00:15:32.240
Strong adjectives there, but very indefensible is powerful, yeah.

00:15:32.720 --> 00:15:39.679
But he spends so much of the statement defending his context and his intent that it just doesn't work here.

00:15:39.840 --> 00:15:41.759
And then he says, and that's on me.

00:15:42.000 --> 00:15:43.039
That's a good line.

00:15:43.200 --> 00:15:50.960
I mean, it's closer to accountability, but it's immediately undercut by the long explanation that follows.

00:15:51.200 --> 00:15:55.120
Quote, I accept that reality and the humiliation that comes with it.

00:15:55.279 --> 00:15:57.200
This risks self-pity.

00:15:57.519 --> 00:15:59.679
The humiliation is all about him.

00:15:59.919 --> 00:16:08.480
The moral center of the story is in the victims and in the complicity, not in his discomfort.

00:16:08.799 --> 00:16:13.279
Next, getting into the fresh shipment explanation.

00:16:13.440 --> 00:16:18.879
He says, quote, I want to start by directly addressing the email thread that I've been asked about the most.

00:16:19.440 --> 00:16:20.799
Reactive framing.

00:16:20.960 --> 00:16:24.159
He's letting the internet pick the agenda.

00:16:24.799 --> 00:16:31.840
Also asked about the most really sounds closer to this is what everybody else is talking about on the internet.

00:16:32.240 --> 00:16:36.399
So it's not about values, it's about the velocity of that one comment.

00:16:36.559 --> 00:16:43.840
Quote In June 2015, subject line got a fresh shipment with photographed bottles of metaphorin.

00:16:43.919 --> 00:16:47.840
Now, I believe that that photo has been redacted.

00:16:48.799 --> 00:16:56.720
It's the problem is it's overly specific in a way that feels rehearsed, like he was talking to a crisis person to tell him what to say.

00:16:56.960 --> 00:17:08.480
It certainly may be true, but it's as if he was anticipating the skepticism and already trying to pre-bunk it before it got bigger, if it was nothing in the first place.

00:17:08.799 --> 00:17:13.200
He replied, attached a photograph of an adult woman.

00:17:13.599 --> 00:17:16.400
The adult is doing the heavy lifting here.

00:17:16.559 --> 00:17:21.440
It signals that he knows the implication of what people know about Jeffrey Epstein.

00:17:21.519 --> 00:17:23.359
And it's definitely understandable.

00:17:23.680 --> 00:17:31.359
But it does trigger a new question of why was that exchange acceptable at all with Jeffrey Epstein?

00:17:31.519 --> 00:17:34.400
Quote, I responded with crude, tasteless banter.

00:17:35.039 --> 00:17:38.799
He labels it, but does not name what is revealed.

00:17:39.119 --> 00:17:45.279
Banter is instead of these hard, crude emails.

00:17:45.519 --> 00:17:51.839
Quote, at the time I understood this exchange as juvenile, not a reference to anything dark or harmful.

00:17:52.079 --> 00:17:56.160
The problem, this is the I didn't know defense by another name.

00:17:56.240 --> 00:18:09.119
But with Epstein claiming that sexualized messaging is juvenile and harmless is a very hard sell when everybody at that time knew he was.

00:18:09.359 --> 00:18:16.720
And also juvenile from a physician in a professional orbit is a really, really bad look for this guy.

00:18:16.880 --> 00:18:21.119
So it implies deep immaturity and judgment.

00:18:21.359 --> 00:18:23.279
And that's what the critics are saying about him.

00:18:23.359 --> 00:18:24.559
And that's the problem.

00:18:24.799 --> 00:18:25.200
All right.

00:18:25.359 --> 00:18:27.440
I had a little exposure to prominent people.

00:18:27.519 --> 00:18:29.599
The level of access was novel to me.

00:18:29.839 --> 00:18:34.000
Quote, everything about him seems excessive and exclusive.

00:18:34.240 --> 00:18:39.759
Largest home, Boeing 727, powers with parties with the most powerful.

00:18:40.160 --> 00:18:44.160
Still caught up and impressed with Jeffrey Epstein.

00:18:44.240 --> 00:18:45.200
It's weird.

00:18:45.279 --> 00:18:48.480
It's like a brag-adjacent glamour.

00:18:48.880 --> 00:18:52.559
You don't want to be seduced and sound enchanted by someone.

00:18:52.720 --> 00:18:55.440
Like we're actually seeing why he got swept into it.

00:18:55.599 --> 00:18:58.720
Quote, I treated that access as something to be quiet about.

00:18:58.960 --> 00:19:01.680
It's a confession of secrecy.

00:19:01.839 --> 00:19:03.599
He's saying that I kept secrets.

00:19:03.839 --> 00:19:07.119
And he's someone who is just exposed in the secrets.

00:19:07.359 --> 00:19:11.599
What I was referring to was the discretion commanded by these circles.

00:19:12.559 --> 00:19:18.079
He's validating the critique that elite circles protect themselves through silence.

00:19:18.559 --> 00:19:20.160
So self-incrimination.

00:19:20.400 --> 00:19:23.039
What I wrote reads terribly, and I own that.

00:19:23.200 --> 00:19:24.960
Okay, a strong line.

00:19:25.359 --> 00:19:32.319
But again, he keeps circling back to how it reads, not what it reveals in his judgment.

00:19:33.039 --> 00:19:33.519
All right.

00:19:33.759 --> 00:19:34.640
Then some other things.

00:19:34.799 --> 00:19:41.119
Like between summer 2014 and 2019, I met him seven or eight occasions at his New York City home.

00:19:41.359 --> 00:19:44.640
Only seven or eight is that minimizing language.

00:19:44.799 --> 00:19:49.039
Also, his home is not a neutral professional setting.

00:19:49.200 --> 00:19:54.000
Repeated visits to a convicted sex offender's home is hard to square with.

00:19:54.079 --> 00:19:55.039
I was naive.

00:19:55.440 --> 00:19:59.279
I never visited his island or ranch, never flew on any of his planes.

00:19:59.440 --> 00:20:02.240
Again, he keeps returning back to the geography.

00:20:02.480 --> 00:20:06.640
It just suggests that he knows exactly what he was doing.

00:20:06.720 --> 00:20:08.799
It's just shorthand for guilt.

00:20:08.960 --> 00:20:10.960
Quote, I was not his doctor.

00:20:11.200 --> 00:20:14.079
If he was not his doctor, then what's the relationship?

00:20:14.400 --> 00:20:15.440
He should have kept that out.

00:20:15.519 --> 00:20:16.720
It opens a big hole.

00:20:16.960 --> 00:20:20.720
Several times I answered general medical questions and recommended other providers.

00:20:20.880 --> 00:20:22.720
So he provided medical guidance anyway.

00:20:22.880 --> 00:20:25.039
It's a boundary muddle.

00:20:25.680 --> 00:20:29.920
Next, shortly after we met, I asked him directly about his 2008 conviction.

00:20:30.079 --> 00:20:35.680
Okay, so you're trying to show diligence, but it also confirms that you knew that Epstein had a conviction.

00:20:36.240 --> 00:20:36.960
Doesn't work.

00:20:37.200 --> 00:20:40.799
He characterized it as a prostitution-related charges.

00:20:41.119 --> 00:20:46.079
Again, Tia is minimizing Epstein's minimization.

00:20:46.240 --> 00:20:49.519
So again, it's repeating Epstein's minimization.

00:20:49.759 --> 00:20:52.240
He's like laundering the framing.

00:20:52.480 --> 00:20:57.440
2018, I came to learn this was grossly minimized, naive to believe him.

00:20:57.599 --> 00:21:08.880
Again, the pattern with naive, if your defense is I was naive across multiple years, then you're not someone to be trusted, particularly in the medical field.

00:21:09.119 --> 00:21:13.680
Quote To be clear, I never witnessed illegal behavior and never saw anyone who appeared underage.

00:21:14.160 --> 00:21:17.680
Again, the I didn't see it defensed.

00:21:18.000 --> 00:21:24.160
Even if you weren't in the room and you were seeing it with your own eyes, people knew what he was about.

00:21:25.839 --> 00:21:27.839
Oh, this is so frustrating.

00:21:28.160 --> 00:21:28.960
Let's see.

00:21:29.200 --> 00:21:33.759
So now he's talking about the accountability attempt where he's trying to make a difference here.

00:21:33.920 --> 00:21:38.079
At quote, at that point, I told him directly he needed to accept responsibility.

00:21:38.240 --> 00:21:38.720
Irony.

00:21:39.119 --> 00:21:42.880
The problem here, again, a very strange posture.

00:21:43.519 --> 00:21:48.319
Why is Atia advising Epstein on accountability?

00:21:48.559 --> 00:21:50.880
Again, it's suggesting that closeness.

00:21:51.119 --> 00:21:54.880
Quote, in hindsight, attempting to facilitate accountability was a mistake.

00:21:55.039 --> 00:21:59.519
Disengement should have been the only appropriate response.

00:22:00.480 --> 00:22:08.559
So finally, in his letter, he gets to the right principle, but it comes way too late with way too much explanation.

00:22:08.799 --> 00:22:13.920
And also in hindsight, reads like, I understand this now because I got caught.

00:22:14.079 --> 00:22:15.759
You guys found me out.

00:22:16.640 --> 00:22:22.640
So then in the last section here, he says, quote, nothing is meant to minimize the harm.

00:22:22.799 --> 00:22:26.079
Again, necessary, but sounds like a disclaimer.

00:22:26.319 --> 00:22:30.319
Quote, I'm not asking for a pass, not asking anyone to ignore the emails.

00:22:30.480 --> 00:22:31.599
Okay, good tactic.

00:22:31.680 --> 00:22:33.200
I actually like that line.

00:22:33.440 --> 00:22:43.920
But it still clashes with the fact that the statement is in practice a structured attempt to reduce negative influencing.

00:22:44.559 --> 00:22:49.359
Saying I'm not asking for a pass doesn't mean that you're not trying.

00:22:49.599 --> 00:22:52.319
And clearly he's trying for a pass.

00:22:52.720 --> 00:22:57.519
Quote, the man I am today would not write them and would not associate with Epstein at all.

00:22:57.680 --> 00:23:01.119
Uh growth framing is not proof.

00:23:01.599 --> 00:23:04.160
It just also invites a very obvious question.

00:23:04.319 --> 00:23:06.400
Well, when did you become that man then?

00:23:06.880 --> 00:23:08.079
What was the trigger?

00:23:08.240 --> 00:23:15.519
What made you become a decent man who doesn't interact with convicted sex offenders?

00:23:15.839 --> 00:23:17.839
Because the timeline does matter.

00:23:18.079 --> 00:23:22.079
Quote, whatever growth I've had does not erase the emails.

00:23:22.400 --> 00:23:25.200
No, it's as if he's wishing it did.

00:23:25.519 --> 00:23:35.279
But again, it's not about the emails, it's about his behavior that was exposed when the emails were exposed.

00:23:35.440 --> 00:23:37.599
Quote, I won't ask anyone to defend me.

00:23:37.839 --> 00:23:41.519
Sounds noble, uh, but it also functions as pressure.

00:23:41.680 --> 00:23:44.240
Remember, this is a letter to his team.

00:23:44.880 --> 00:23:49.119
So that is his way of saying, please defend me.

00:23:49.279 --> 00:24:03.920
Quote, if you have questions to his team, again, inward facing signals the priority is on the inside, not the public, which is good from an insider point of view, but this was his public letter.

00:24:04.640 --> 00:24:07.839
He is in a public credibility crisis.

00:24:08.079 --> 00:24:15.519
But everything in this letter to his staff reads like containment, which is usually what happens when people are found out in a crisis.

00:24:15.759 --> 00:24:27.680
So the big picture problem here for Peter Atia, his statement is written for legal clarity and personal remorse.

00:24:28.400 --> 00:24:31.359
But his crisis is about judgment.

00:24:31.599 --> 00:24:45.759
It's about moral judgment and his desire for proximity to power, which absolutely tracks with who he is online and also with his past.

00:24:46.079 --> 00:24:49.839
Because perhaps he just found out that it was too small for him.

00:24:50.079 --> 00:24:52.720
He didn't want the drudgery, the day-to-day drudgery.

00:24:52.799 --> 00:24:54.400
He didn't want to deal with patience.

00:24:54.559 --> 00:24:56.319
He just didn't want to deal.

00:24:56.559 --> 00:24:59.359
He wanted to be a bigger guy, a bigger name.

00:24:59.599 --> 00:25:03.039
He wanted proximity to power and where he is right now.

00:25:03.359 --> 00:25:08.400
And he keeps trying to win with the I didn't do crimes, I didn't mean it that way.

00:25:09.039 --> 00:25:15.359
But why were you comfortable there for a decade with Epstein?

00:25:16.079 --> 00:25:20.880
The gap is why it's a horrible response from Peter Atia.

00:25:21.680 --> 00:25:30.880
It answers questions he wished people asked, but not the questions that people are asking, which is very common in a crisis.

00:25:31.039 --> 00:25:33.599
What's answering the questions no one is asking?

00:25:38.640 --> 00:25:40.799
So, what does this mean for Peter Atia?

00:25:41.200 --> 00:25:49.200
Well, as I mentioned, he's been called the internet's favorite doctor, but he isn't dispensing health advice as a medical doctor.

00:25:49.519 --> 00:25:55.920
So why this is problematic for him is that he's a media personality.

00:25:56.559 --> 00:26:07.839
All the followers he has can be gone like that, because now his personal choices become the product, not his product himself.

00:26:08.000 --> 00:26:17.039
So Peter cannot sell all these years of rigorous thinking when he clearly wasn't thinking, at least for the last 10 years.

00:26:17.440 --> 00:26:19.920
So what's gonna happen to him?

00:26:20.480 --> 00:26:24.240
I think if it was any other network, he would have been gone by now.

00:26:24.319 --> 00:26:27.839
The fact that CBS is still vacillating on him just boggles my mind.

00:26:28.000 --> 00:26:33.920
Atia did not commit a crime, but the optics on him are unsalvageable.

00:26:34.319 --> 00:26:36.559
Any other network would have dropped him by now.

00:26:36.720 --> 00:26:41.839
And if CBS doesn't, well, what does that say?

00:26:42.079 --> 00:26:43.839
What does that say about CBS?

00:26:44.079 --> 00:26:48.880
So the irony here, the outlive guy should not live this crisis.

00:26:49.119 --> 00:26:59.680
I want you from this podcast listening to be asking questions of the people you follow.

00:27:00.640 --> 00:27:05.039
I want people to be more discerning about the people they follow.

00:27:05.279 --> 00:27:07.440
I'm not a big proponent of cancel culture.

00:27:07.519 --> 00:27:10.400
I'm not saying that Peter Tia should lose everything.

00:27:10.640 --> 00:27:12.240
He shouldn't lose everything.

00:27:12.480 --> 00:27:14.000
He can keep doing what he's doing.

00:27:14.160 --> 00:27:20.480
But I'm saying if you're following him, what are the values that you're following from him?

00:27:20.640 --> 00:27:22.480
So there is a reputation lesson here.

00:27:22.640 --> 00:27:31.440
In the social media space, so much reputation is built on the amount of followers, and it just takes one crisis to lose all of it.

00:27:31.759 --> 00:27:36.000
This letter didn't cut it at all.

00:27:36.480 --> 00:27:38.000
He is covering.

00:27:38.079 --> 00:27:40.000
There is not full accountability.

00:27:40.240 --> 00:27:41.839
He could still be on the air.

00:27:42.000 --> 00:27:48.640
Peter Tia has built a career in telling people how to live longer, think better, optimize harder.

00:27:48.880 --> 00:27:56.079
But his proximity to Epstein for so many years calls into question everything that he has said.

00:27:56.480 --> 00:27:59.680
CBS, the jury's still out on them.

00:28:00.240 --> 00:28:12.319
But when you're in the business of credibility, so whether you're a doctor, a journalist, a crisis manager, or you have a media platform, you do not get to skip the part where you explain your choices.

00:28:14.960 --> 00:28:22.000
Especially when those choices involve staying close to someone whose harm is public knowledge.

00:28:22.480 --> 00:28:24.160
Sales won't fix that.

00:28:24.400 --> 00:28:32.240
And silence and deflection definitely doesn't fix that at all.

00:28:33.839 --> 00:28:36.480
So we'll see what happens to Peter Hatea.

00:28:36.960 --> 00:28:44.319
But if you follow one thing, I say is this just be discerning on who you follow.

00:28:44.480 --> 00:28:50.960
And it's okay to cast moral judgment on people who make morally ambiguous decisions.

00:28:51.279 --> 00:28:54.720
All right, everyone, that's it for this week on the podcast.

00:28:54.880 --> 00:28:56.240
Thanks so much for listening.

00:28:56.400 --> 00:28:57.519
Bye for now.

The Epstein Emails: Why Peter Attia's Response Failed

Listen On

Recent Episodes

communications Episodes

PR Episodes

Browse episodes by category