XPrize founder Peter Diamandis asked Jeffrey Epstein "to connect and catch up" while the convicted sex offender was still in jail for procuring a child for prostitution.
Excellent reporting and analysis, Paul. The Epstein affair is a profound and ongoing moral failure. Those who sought proximity to him for status or advantage bear responsibility for enabling that environment and should be judged accordingly. But the conduct of physicians who associated with him is particularly troubling, given the ethical obligations of our profession. I deeply appreciated @erictopol's response to Peter Attia which addressed this issue directly and explicitly challenged Attia's hucksterism. It's just one more example of the ongoing decay in pubic trust.
Agreed, Jim. I know there were people who, given the opportunity, made a conscious choice to not associate with Epstein or solicit his wealth. But the number of people who failed to question their own motives is depressingly large.
I found Attia about 3 years ago, just before Outlive was published. As a 77 year old at that time, I found a lot of good info which inspired me to improve my fitness. I also found stuff that made no sense. As with everything I read on the health space and other areas, I took what made sense and used it. The rest I discarded. Because of his disgusting Epstein entanglement, especially the family issues with his son, does that mean I should be discard what is of value? Unfortunately he and lots of other longevity gurus have achieved almost God like stature. Perhaps this will cause some to question their undying loyalty to those on the pedestal. But in our 30 second tik Tok world, I have my doubts as tomorrow we'll be on to the next worst thing. Great article as usual, much appreciated.
More like this, please. These wellness "influencers" (I cringe at this word every time I read or hear it) need to be held to account. The mainstream press will have so much to report on; this could be your niche. Thanks for this work. And yes, let's hope the world stops reading "Outlive." I'd rather take longevity advice from the old cranks who lived until 103 by drinking shots of espresso and eating cheese every night while caring for their pack of rescue dogs. Or maybe I'm just projecting.
Vicki, good thoughts, all. Espresso is good for you, I think. Wondering how many rescue dogs you've already collected. Perhaps Outlive has outlived its usefulness, who knows.
I don't know if she is in the government files. Her presence at Epstein's birthday party for the odious person formerly known as Prince Andrew was made public previous to this past data dump, but the decision to be there was noteworthy.
As usual, it’s about power, influence and greed. These people believe they are above any rules and have lost their moral compass. I was shocked ( but maybe should not have been) to see the emails between epstein and Deepak Chopra! So much for enlightenment.
I do not disagree with your point of view, that Peter Attia showed a lack of moral judgment in his association with Epstein and no doubt will suffer some consequences. There is an excess of judgement all around us-I don’t want to read more when I come here. I read your posts because I’m interested in getting stronger as I get older. Just stick with that.
Cherie, I appreciate your comment and agree with you. Perhaps I failed in the execution of my article, but I wasn't trying to focus on his failures but rather on the conundrum that moral failures of those who have done demonstrable good create in us, the audience. To do that, I felt I had to counterpoint Attia's egregious behavior with the ostensible good that his book, Outlive, provides still. (Speaking of which: this week, a friend told me Attia's book had saved her spouse's life because it explained in clear lay language a test for a type of cardiovascular disease that the spouse's primary care doctors hadn't ever mentioned or even raised as a possibility.)
I felt it was necessary to highlight Attia's biggest failure (in my opinion)—not returning home, in 2017, when his son's life was in danger—so readers could clearly weigh the competing sides of the argument for/against cancelling him. Also, to remind readers that the only reason we all know that specific anecdote about Attia is because he wrote about it so candidly in his book. So that's also interesting to understand.
That said, I take your point. I, too, am not interested in judgment as much as how we think about how and when to judge (or not, as the case may be.) I'll certainly be writing more, and more regularly, about getting stronger over time.
What strength topics, or areas, if you don't mind me asking, are you specifically most interested in?
I’m interested in metabolic health, mostly. And questions like how long does it really take to build muscle after 70? And HRV. And gadgets that give you accurate data to help you improve your health. And how does hormone balancing relate to strength training in women. Things like that. I exercise every day and that discipline has spilled over in a positive way to all parts of my life.
I think what you wrote was excellent. We should all be holding up the mirror and asking ourselves every day, “have we done the right thing “.
I just didn’t expect this to be a post on ‘aging with strength.’
Alas, I'm an investigative reporter by training, so I viewed the Attia/Diamandis breaking news as relevant to AGING with STRENGTH because of their roles in the (overhyped) longevity market. But I take the point that not all my readers are interested in investigative reporting. I'm glad you're sticking around for the other stuff, of which there will be plenty.
Your list of interests is helpful to know. I'd like to make a point of reporting several of those topics into future articles. Thank you for being specific. Really helps. Stay tuned.
Trying my best to lay out a devil's advocate position here (not sure why, but I find it to be an interesting conversation):
If I were that concerned about all the stuff famous people are involved in, or their secret (or public) political & religious viewpoints, depraved lives they live, I wouldn't be able to listen to a single song, see a movie, or ever watch TV. Maybe even read a book. I certainly wouldn't ever be able to vote. If I had the talent, and opportunity, wouldn't I look for somebody to help me get access to influence and maybe make big money? Wouldn't I say to myself, "I've never done any of that bad stuff and I never would, so what's the big deal about kissing up to a disgusting, vile person? I could secure my family's financial future for generations! All that and I get to fly on private planes, go to private islands! I would definitely keep my hands to myself, so what's the problem?"
You raise a really interesting, nuanced point, or series of points and questions. I was talking with someone yesterday about the idea of whether it makes sense to throw out Peter Attia’s book because Attia himself went out of his way to suck up to a vile person who sexually abused girls and made them available to other vile, wealthy men. For some folks, Attia’s choice makes reading his words repugnant; for others, including someone, say, whose health and life Attia helped save by writing about ApoB in a way that no one had before, his book has good left to give the world, even if its author doesn’t.
That said, predictably we’re now seeing people with an unintentional, third-degree association with Epstein being scolded, punished and/or canceled, because the mob doesn’t distinguish or care about intent and motive, just association, which is vile in its own way.
I sympathize with your question so much because I asked myself when I wrote this article: does each of these people deserve to be named? I answered that this way: First, someone had to have a connection to the longevity-wellness industrial complex, as I call it. Second—and this is where personal judgment, born of one’s own specific moral code and sense of fairness, come into play—a person had to be shown to intentionally seek the company or favor of Epstein after they knew or should have known what he coercively did to women and girls. This second test was crucial for me because I believe it reveals a self-serving lack of integrity.
For me, the coercive aspect of Epstein’s treatment of girls and women, which is an element of economic predation, is among the behaviors I find intolerable. So if Katie Couric, who now runs a media organization that claims to help people live healthier for longer, made a decision in 2010 to celebrate Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor’s b-day with Epstein 5 months after Epstein had finished serving a felony conviction for procuring a child for prostitution, I believe that Couric should have put her journalism and her presumed ethical standards above her choice to lend her credibility and prestige, etc. to an objectively disgusting man who had intentionally harmed children.
The same standard, roughly, applies to Peter Diamandis, who claims, in his response to my rebuttal of his statement objecting to my article, that he hadn’t known Epstein was a convicted sex offender, several years after Esptein was released from jail.
Those are my standards, because I wouldn’t go out of my way to curry favor with Epstein, regardless of whether he might donate millions to my cause or business, because that wealth is rotted by the earner’s vile actions.
But I don’t force my conclusion on others. Which is why I publish such pieces and allow readers to make up their own minds.
Thank you for opening this line of inquiry. It’s incredibly important and complicated.
I wish someone would have the courage to follow the link Epstein has to another kind of longevity scam ; transhumanism propagated around the world as the so called 'human rights' movement gender ideology, currently indoctrinating children in schools all over the globe. At the same time stealthily enmeshed in media, politics, pharma and tech... just like the porn industry - also known as free speech for men. I appreciate this post and love the work that you do but I'm wondering if as person of the 'left' if you have the eyes to see these dangerous connections. I'm from the UK, previously of the left but currently disenfranched. Men ruling the world doesn't work for me and many other women across the world; I'm afraid democracy is dead.
Winifred, thanks for your note. I’ll correct one error in it, which is that I’m “a person of the ‘left.’ I am not, and I think anyone who knows me—including many people proudly of the left—would tell you I am demonstrably not.
I presume you make that inference, however, because of my closing thought in this post, asking rhetorically whether cancelling Peter Attia for his (vile) words and actions can make sense at a time when the people running this country’s government have arguably done as much or worse than him.
That doesn’t make me a leftist any more than owning 12 firearms—or publicly criticizing the protectors of Joe Biden’s senescence, or mocking Stanford Law students for shouting down a conservative federal judge for offering opinions they disagreed with—makes me a conservative.
All to say: When powerful people lie to the public, I’ll call it out regardless of their politics.
I stand corrected and I agree that we should hold all of them to account. After all, the so called ‘right’ and ‘left’ have happily taken turns for the whole of my life time to get us to the state we are in.
A person, with big ambitions, goes to look for money and connections. Sometimes they are lucky enough to stumble onto someone with big money and big connections. Sometimes, so big are both the money and the connections that they can’t believe what they’re seeing, who else is involved, how huge the potential is. It is at this point they forget where they came from, how they were raised, right vs wrong. A tale as old as time.
It can certainly seem like a familiar tale. It would be good to know more about the length, depth and motivations of those seeking time with and actually engaging with Epstein.
His book had valuable information in it that helped me, I have to say. Would I support it now by buying it? No, probably. Would I open the chapter on ApoB, if I didn't understand the risk it may pose to my health? Yes. So there's dissonance, to say the least. I appreciate you reading and sharing your thoughts, Pete.
Great article but what is this about? “…posted a lengthy statement on X (fitting, considering Elon owns the often vile, increasingly toxic platform and is also featured in Epstein’s emails) ,” Toxic. Should the X be moderated and censored? It’s called free speech even when you don’t like it. Just like the free speech you just exercised.
I'm not sure what isn't clear about my thought. I find X to be a place where people hide behind anonymity to insult and threaten other people, some of whom are also hiding behind their own anonymity. I don't find that to foster dialogue and debate as much as allow intolerance and abuse to flourish. Free speech it may be, but not the kind that I enjoy. Free speech can be violent toxic and intolerant. Also, when you allow idiots to use your technology to post AI generated nude photos of women on your platform without their consent, you're by definition an idiot, which Elon often is.
Attia's shameful sexual behavior tells us he is a fallible man. Attia's book is the product of the scientific Attia - do not conflate the 2, although we will.
I am a 79 y/o physician who has a personal longevity program inspired by Sinclar's "Lifespan".From my memory of "Outlive", Attia focused on physiologic variables, esp VO2max. He mistakeningly trashed supplements, a mistake as the pathways of aging are manifold and complex. Many supplements are of proven utility, cf nat lib med
There is a deep ethical issue in the behavior of "longevity influencers" - NAMELY THEY ARE CONSUMED BY GREED, NOT BY THE CARITAS THAT SHOULD MOTIVATE ALL CARE GIVERS.
Here is a prediction - we now have an obscene wealth gap. Soon there will be a longevity gap when the average oligarch lives significantly longer than poor people who are unaware of longevity hacks and have poor, nonlongevity health care. THE AMERICAN HEALTH CARE SYSTEM IS A FUCKING OBSCENITY
Peter Diamandis here. So that everyone understands the details here and not the "story" that Paul is trying to create here...
In May of 2013 my book agent Jon Brockman introduced me to Epstein as a philanthropist interested in funding science and technology and potentially XPRIZE. The link to the Epstein files is below in this message. If you search for my name you’ll find a dozen emails between my EA and Epstein’s assistant trying to set up a meeting.
I had a single fundraising meeting with Epstein about XPRIZE. I presented our work to him at his Manhattan offices. He never donated (thank god) and we never met again. That's it and any implication that there is anything else beyond that is false conjecture. It is true that I did
not do any background research on him, I simply went into the meeting at Brockman's suggestion.... KYC is important.
Epstein's actions are pure evil, and had i known more about him, i would have never pursued a meeting. I incorrectly trust a colleague and took the meeting.
I'm glad to have your reply to this article, although what it does not address is notable, and its implication of my motives for writing it is as unfortunate as it is false. Below I reply to each of your assertions in detail:
1. You assert that I'm "trying to create" a "story" that you imply is misleading. That is false—demonstrably so. I reported only the information found in your email correspondences with Epstein, and I pointed out what they, in fact, do not say. My article pointed out that your emails with Epstein covered the years from 2009 to 2014, and that only a fraction of the 268 instances your name appears in the Epstein files were direct, person-to-person correspondence between you and him. My article reports not a fabricated story but rather facts, including those you fail in your above response to address, as I point out below.
2. You assert that you were "introduced" to Epstein "as a philanthropist" in 2013 by your book agent, and that had you "known more about" Epstein, you would not have taken that meeting. In fact, you emailed Epstein 4 years earlier asking for a “catch up.” My article includes the image of an email you sent to Epstein on April 28, 2009, in which you wrote: "Hi Jeffrey- It's been a while since we chatted. I'd love to connect & catch up...." That email shows you and Epstein had “chatted” previous to April 2009. Thus, your assertion above that you "simply went into the meeting" with Epstein in 2013 at your book agent's suggestion fails to address what the documents show, ie, your interest in meeting with Epstein in 2009. Nor does your explanation above address the clear context of your 2009 email that you and Epstein were already on a first name basis, had been in contact and were due for a "catch up."
3. You assert that you "didn't do any background research" on Epstein prior to a single meeting you claim you had with Epstein about XPRIZE, facilitated by your book agent. You further say you "simply went into the meeting at (your agent's) suggestion." In fact, the emails I published show you had a friendly connection to Epstein from at least 2009, when you emailed him to "connect & catch up." Notably, you sent that 2009 email request to Epstein while he was serving jail time for procuring a minor for prostitution. I’ll also point out that the construction of your sentence asserting, "I had a single fundraising meeting with Epstein about XPRIZE," can be read to mean that you had only one XPRIZE-fundraising-related meeting with Epstein, leaving open the possibility that you had other, non-XPRIZE, non-fundraising meetings with Epstein, in person or otherwise.
You also assert that you failed to do any research on Epstein, prior to meeting him 4 years later. You do not explain how you, or anyone on your staff, remained completely unaware of Epstein's 2008 felony conviction, registration as a sex offender, and the 18-month prison sentence he was still serving when your reached out to him in 2009 with the notation that "it's been a while since we chatted."
4. You assert of Epstein that "had I known about him, I would have never pursued a meeting." As I point out above, your meeting with Epstein occurred almost 4 years after he had been convicted of procuring a child for prostitution, was a registered sex offender, and had served 13 months of an 18-month sentence in Florida. Epstein's reputation and criminal history were widely documented in media. To believe that neither you—given your reputation as one of the most astute, innovative and sophisticated entrepreneurs in the world—nor your staff had any notion of Epstein's past is asking my readers to put aside their common sense. If you didn't know of Epstein's past in 2009, your note makes no mention of whether you believe you had an obligation to know.
5. Finally, you say that "KYC is important." KYC refers to "know your customer," and I appreciate you pointing out the importance of that idea. My customer is my audience, and my obligation is to report to my audience the facts, fairly and accurately, without worrying whom it might displease or make uncomfortable. I believe I've done that in this article. If my article got any facts wrong, I urge you to say so and I'll acknowledge any errors and correct them.
If you'd like to continue this discussion, I welcome your response.
Mr. Diamandis glibly overlooks the emails that he sent to Epstein in 2009 when he tries to deflect and defend his “innocence”. When you can’t defend yourself with the truth, the next step is to blame others for your obvious and questionable conduct. Good rebuttal, Paul.
Hi Paul, 1. >>> Thank you. Yes, the vast majority of the have nothing to do with me… and I have no idea why they are flagged.
2. >>>You are correct, I was introduced to Epstein at a group dinner hosted by Jon Bockman at TED Monterey, organized by Brockman for all the writers that Brock-Inc represented. . We introduced at that time but we didn’t connect beyond an initial introduction. It was later that Brockman suggested that I approach Epstein for XPRIZE Funding, which I did, per the emails you’ve seen. Regarding a first name basis… I’m basically on a first name basis with everyone I know or have met. There is no signal in that statement, is there?
3. >>>As noted the “friendly connection with Epstein” occurred through a TED Dinner, once, again via Brockman. Yup, unfortunately I was totally unaware of his shameful conviction, and no one else I knew had flagged that for me. If I had known, I would not have engaged.
4. >>>Yes, you’ve made that point, and that doesn’t change the fact that I didn’t know.
5. >>>Yes, of course, KYC is the wrong term for me to use. Perhaps Due Diligence is a better term.
You’re above statement misrepresents my above rebuttal to you. By writing, in your point 2 above, "You are correct," you falsely imply that I'm the one asserting that you were passively introduced to Epstein at a dinner at TED Monterey. However, that's your assertion, not mine. Your statement, intentional or otherwise, conflates your assertions with my reporting, potentially confusing readers.
So, to clarify the record: I reported, based on publicly available documents, is that you had a friendly correspondence with Epstein in 2009, and that the text of your 2009 email demonstrates that your connection to Epstein goes back further in time.
Notably, neither of your replies today to my reporting thus far acknowledge the 2009 email, and in fact appear to try to contradict the length of your Epstein acquaintance by stating you were "introduced" to him only in 2013.
I believe the public would welcome your unambiguous explanation of the full length and nature of your connection to Epstein, from 2009 and earlier.
Excellent reporting and analysis, Paul. The Epstein affair is a profound and ongoing moral failure. Those who sought proximity to him for status or advantage bear responsibility for enabling that environment and should be judged accordingly. But the conduct of physicians who associated with him is particularly troubling, given the ethical obligations of our profession. I deeply appreciated @erictopol's response to Peter Attia which addressed this issue directly and explicitly challenged Attia's hucksterism. It's just one more example of the ongoing decay in pubic trust.
Agreed, Jim. I know there were people who, given the opportunity, made a conscious choice to not associate with Epstein or solicit his wealth. But the number of people who failed to question their own motives is depressingly large.
Thanks for inspiring me to write something about this. It’s been bothering me.
Happy to oblige, Jim. Let it rip.
I found Attia about 3 years ago, just before Outlive was published. As a 77 year old at that time, I found a lot of good info which inspired me to improve my fitness. I also found stuff that made no sense. As with everything I read on the health space and other areas, I took what made sense and used it. The rest I discarded. Because of his disgusting Epstein entanglement, especially the family issues with his son, does that mean I should be discard what is of value? Unfortunately he and lots of other longevity gurus have achieved almost God like stature. Perhaps this will cause some to question their undying loyalty to those on the pedestal. But in our 30 second tik Tok world, I have my doubts as tomorrow we'll be on to the next worst thing. Great article as usual, much appreciated.
More like this, please. These wellness "influencers" (I cringe at this word every time I read or hear it) need to be held to account. The mainstream press will have so much to report on; this could be your niche. Thanks for this work. And yes, let's hope the world stops reading "Outlive." I'd rather take longevity advice from the old cranks who lived until 103 by drinking shots of espresso and eating cheese every night while caring for their pack of rescue dogs. Or maybe I'm just projecting.
Vicki, good thoughts, all. Espresso is good for you, I think. Wondering how many rescue dogs you've already collected. Perhaps Outlive has outlived its usefulness, who knows.
Just one for now.
Also: Katie Couric is in the files? Ugh.
I don't know if she is in the government files. Her presence at Epstein's birthday party for the odious person formerly known as Prince Andrew was made public previous to this past data dump, but the decision to be there was noteworthy.
As usual, it’s about power, influence and greed. These people believe they are above any rules and have lost their moral compass. I was shocked ( but maybe should not have been) to see the emails between epstein and Deepak Chopra! So much for enlightenment.
Lauren, I’m with you. Maybe enlightenment is just another word for nothing left to lose…
Well reported, as usual!
I do not disagree with your point of view, that Peter Attia showed a lack of moral judgment in his association with Epstein and no doubt will suffer some consequences. There is an excess of judgement all around us-I don’t want to read more when I come here. I read your posts because I’m interested in getting stronger as I get older. Just stick with that.
Cherie, I appreciate your comment and agree with you. Perhaps I failed in the execution of my article, but I wasn't trying to focus on his failures but rather on the conundrum that moral failures of those who have done demonstrable good create in us, the audience. To do that, I felt I had to counterpoint Attia's egregious behavior with the ostensible good that his book, Outlive, provides still. (Speaking of which: this week, a friend told me Attia's book had saved her spouse's life because it explained in clear lay language a test for a type of cardiovascular disease that the spouse's primary care doctors hadn't ever mentioned or even raised as a possibility.)
I felt it was necessary to highlight Attia's biggest failure (in my opinion)—not returning home, in 2017, when his son's life was in danger—so readers could clearly weigh the competing sides of the argument for/against cancelling him. Also, to remind readers that the only reason we all know that specific anecdote about Attia is because he wrote about it so candidly in his book. So that's also interesting to understand.
That said, I take your point. I, too, am not interested in judgment as much as how we think about how and when to judge (or not, as the case may be.) I'll certainly be writing more, and more regularly, about getting stronger over time.
What strength topics, or areas, if you don't mind me asking, are you specifically most interested in?
I’m interested in metabolic health, mostly. And questions like how long does it really take to build muscle after 70? And HRV. And gadgets that give you accurate data to help you improve your health. And how does hormone balancing relate to strength training in women. Things like that. I exercise every day and that discipline has spilled over in a positive way to all parts of my life.
I think what you wrote was excellent. We should all be holding up the mirror and asking ourselves every day, “have we done the right thing “.
I just didn’t expect this to be a post on ‘aging with strength.’
Alas, I'm an investigative reporter by training, so I viewed the Attia/Diamandis breaking news as relevant to AGING with STRENGTH because of their roles in the (overhyped) longevity market. But I take the point that not all my readers are interested in investigative reporting. I'm glad you're sticking around for the other stuff, of which there will be plenty.
Your list of interests is helpful to know. I'd like to make a point of reporting several of those topics into future articles. Thank you for being specific. Really helps. Stay tuned.
Trying my best to lay out a devil's advocate position here (not sure why, but I find it to be an interesting conversation):
If I were that concerned about all the stuff famous people are involved in, or their secret (or public) political & religious viewpoints, depraved lives they live, I wouldn't be able to listen to a single song, see a movie, or ever watch TV. Maybe even read a book. I certainly wouldn't ever be able to vote. If I had the talent, and opportunity, wouldn't I look for somebody to help me get access to influence and maybe make big money? Wouldn't I say to myself, "I've never done any of that bad stuff and I never would, so what's the big deal about kissing up to a disgusting, vile person? I could secure my family's financial future for generations! All that and I get to fly on private planes, go to private islands! I would definitely keep my hands to myself, so what's the problem?"
You raise a really interesting, nuanced point, or series of points and questions. I was talking with someone yesterday about the idea of whether it makes sense to throw out Peter Attia’s book because Attia himself went out of his way to suck up to a vile person who sexually abused girls and made them available to other vile, wealthy men. For some folks, Attia’s choice makes reading his words repugnant; for others, including someone, say, whose health and life Attia helped save by writing about ApoB in a way that no one had before, his book has good left to give the world, even if its author doesn’t.
That said, predictably we’re now seeing people with an unintentional, third-degree association with Epstein being scolded, punished and/or canceled, because the mob doesn’t distinguish or care about intent and motive, just association, which is vile in its own way.
I sympathize with your question so much because I asked myself when I wrote this article: does each of these people deserve to be named? I answered that this way: First, someone had to have a connection to the longevity-wellness industrial complex, as I call it. Second—and this is where personal judgment, born of one’s own specific moral code and sense of fairness, come into play—a person had to be shown to intentionally seek the company or favor of Epstein after they knew or should have known what he coercively did to women and girls. This second test was crucial for me because I believe it reveals a self-serving lack of integrity.
For me, the coercive aspect of Epstein’s treatment of girls and women, which is an element of economic predation, is among the behaviors I find intolerable. So if Katie Couric, who now runs a media organization that claims to help people live healthier for longer, made a decision in 2010 to celebrate Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor’s b-day with Epstein 5 months after Epstein had finished serving a felony conviction for procuring a child for prostitution, I believe that Couric should have put her journalism and her presumed ethical standards above her choice to lend her credibility and prestige, etc. to an objectively disgusting man who had intentionally harmed children.
The same standard, roughly, applies to Peter Diamandis, who claims, in his response to my rebuttal of his statement objecting to my article, that he hadn’t known Epstein was a convicted sex offender, several years after Esptein was released from jail.
Those are my standards, because I wouldn’t go out of my way to curry favor with Epstein, regardless of whether he might donate millions to my cause or business, because that wealth is rotted by the earner’s vile actions.
But I don’t force my conclusion on others. Which is why I publish such pieces and allow readers to make up their own minds.
Thank you for opening this line of inquiry. It’s incredibly important and complicated.
I wish someone would have the courage to follow the link Epstein has to another kind of longevity scam ; transhumanism propagated around the world as the so called 'human rights' movement gender ideology, currently indoctrinating children in schools all over the globe. At the same time stealthily enmeshed in media, politics, pharma and tech... just like the porn industry - also known as free speech for men. I appreciate this post and love the work that you do but I'm wondering if as person of the 'left' if you have the eyes to see these dangerous connections. I'm from the UK, previously of the left but currently disenfranched. Men ruling the world doesn't work for me and many other women across the world; I'm afraid democracy is dead.
Winifred, thanks for your note. I’ll correct one error in it, which is that I’m “a person of the ‘left.’ I am not, and I think anyone who knows me—including many people proudly of the left—would tell you I am demonstrably not.
I presume you make that inference, however, because of my closing thought in this post, asking rhetorically whether cancelling Peter Attia for his (vile) words and actions can make sense at a time when the people running this country’s government have arguably done as much or worse than him.
That doesn’t make me a leftist any more than owning 12 firearms—or publicly criticizing the protectors of Joe Biden’s senescence, or mocking Stanford Law students for shouting down a conservative federal judge for offering opinions they disagreed with—makes me a conservative.
All to say: When powerful people lie to the public, I’ll call it out regardless of their politics.
I stand corrected and I agree that we should hold all of them to account. After all, the so called ‘right’ and ‘left’ have happily taken turns for the whole of my life time to get us to the state we are in.
A person, with big ambitions, goes to look for money and connections. Sometimes they are lucky enough to stumble onto someone with big money and big connections. Sometimes, so big are both the money and the connections that they can’t believe what they’re seeing, who else is involved, how huge the potential is. It is at this point they forget where they came from, how they were raised, right vs wrong. A tale as old as time.
It can certainly seem like a familiar tale. It would be good to know more about the length, depth and motivations of those seeking time with and actually engaging with Epstein.
I stopped following Attia’s podcast a couple years ago, but I did purchase and read his book. Disappointing stuff, to say the least.
Yeah, I will probably keep the book. It’s like appreciating a great musician or artist while knowing they aren’t good people.
That makes sense, Pete. It’s really what you yourself are comfortable with.
Great article, Paul.
Pete, thank you for reading. I'm always interested in constructively brutal feedback.
His book had valuable information in it that helped me, I have to say. Would I support it now by buying it? No, probably. Would I open the chapter on ApoB, if I didn't understand the risk it may pose to my health? Yes. So there's dissonance, to say the least. I appreciate you reading and sharing your thoughts, Pete.
Great article but what is this about? “…posted a lengthy statement on X (fitting, considering Elon owns the often vile, increasingly toxic platform and is also featured in Epstein’s emails) ,” Toxic. Should the X be moderated and censored? It’s called free speech even when you don’t like it. Just like the free speech you just exercised.
I'm not sure what isn't clear about my thought. I find X to be a place where people hide behind anonymity to insult and threaten other people, some of whom are also hiding behind their own anonymity. I don't find that to foster dialogue and debate as much as allow intolerance and abuse to flourish. Free speech it may be, but not the kind that I enjoy. Free speech can be violent toxic and intolerant. Also, when you allow idiots to use your technology to post AI generated nude photos of women on your platform without their consent, you're by definition an idiot, which Elon often is.
So that's what that was about.
Attia's shameful sexual behavior tells us he is a fallible man. Attia's book is the product of the scientific Attia - do not conflate the 2, although we will.
I am a 79 y/o physician who has a personal longevity program inspired by Sinclar's "Lifespan".From my memory of "Outlive", Attia focused on physiologic variables, esp VO2max. He mistakeningly trashed supplements, a mistake as the pathways of aging are manifold and complex. Many supplements are of proven utility, cf nat lib med
There is a deep ethical issue in the behavior of "longevity influencers" - NAMELY THEY ARE CONSUMED BY GREED, NOT BY THE CARITAS THAT SHOULD MOTIVATE ALL CARE GIVERS.
Here is a prediction - we now have an obscene wealth gap. Soon there will be a longevity gap when the average oligarch lives significantly longer than poor people who are unaware of longevity hacks and have poor, nonlongevity health care. THE AMERICAN HEALTH CARE SYSTEM IS A FUCKING OBSCENITY
Thank you for for all of this.
Hi Everyone,
Peter Diamandis here. So that everyone understands the details here and not the "story" that Paul is trying to create here...
In May of 2013 my book agent Jon Brockman introduced me to Epstein as a philanthropist interested in funding science and technology and potentially XPRIZE. The link to the Epstein files is below in this message. If you search for my name you’ll find a dozen emails between my EA and Epstein’s assistant trying to set up a meeting.
I had a single fundraising meeting with Epstein about XPRIZE. I presented our work to him at his Manhattan offices. He never donated (thank god) and we never met again. That's it and any implication that there is anything else beyond that is false conjecture. It is true that I did
not do any background research on him, I simply went into the meeting at Brockman's suggestion.... KYC is important.
Epstein's actions are pure evil, and had i known more about him, i would have never pursued a meeting. I incorrectly trust a colleague and took the meeting.
The Epstein Files searchable at this link: https://www.justice.gov/epstein
This post by Paul Von Zielbauer is trying to make this email into something it is not.
Respectfully,
Peter Diamandis, MD
Dear Mr. Diamandis,
I'm glad to have your reply to this article, although what it does not address is notable, and its implication of my motives for writing it is as unfortunate as it is false. Below I reply to each of your assertions in detail:
1. You assert that I'm "trying to create" a "story" that you imply is misleading. That is false—demonstrably so. I reported only the information found in your email correspondences with Epstein, and I pointed out what they, in fact, do not say. My article pointed out that your emails with Epstein covered the years from 2009 to 2014, and that only a fraction of the 268 instances your name appears in the Epstein files were direct, person-to-person correspondence between you and him. My article reports not a fabricated story but rather facts, including those you fail in your above response to address, as I point out below.
2. You assert that you were "introduced" to Epstein "as a philanthropist" in 2013 by your book agent, and that had you "known more about" Epstein, you would not have taken that meeting. In fact, you emailed Epstein 4 years earlier asking for a “catch up.” My article includes the image of an email you sent to Epstein on April 28, 2009, in which you wrote: "Hi Jeffrey- It's been a while since we chatted. I'd love to connect & catch up...." That email shows you and Epstein had “chatted” previous to April 2009. Thus, your assertion above that you "simply went into the meeting" with Epstein in 2013 at your book agent's suggestion fails to address what the documents show, ie, your interest in meeting with Epstein in 2009. Nor does your explanation above address the clear context of your 2009 email that you and Epstein were already on a first name basis, had been in contact and were due for a "catch up."
3. You assert that you "didn't do any background research" on Epstein prior to a single meeting you claim you had with Epstein about XPRIZE, facilitated by your book agent. You further say you "simply went into the meeting at (your agent's) suggestion." In fact, the emails I published show you had a friendly connection to Epstein from at least 2009, when you emailed him to "connect & catch up." Notably, you sent that 2009 email request to Epstein while he was serving jail time for procuring a minor for prostitution. I’ll also point out that the construction of your sentence asserting, "I had a single fundraising meeting with Epstein about XPRIZE," can be read to mean that you had only one XPRIZE-fundraising-related meeting with Epstein, leaving open the possibility that you had other, non-XPRIZE, non-fundraising meetings with Epstein, in person or otherwise.
You also assert that you failed to do any research on Epstein, prior to meeting him 4 years later. You do not explain how you, or anyone on your staff, remained completely unaware of Epstein's 2008 felony conviction, registration as a sex offender, and the 18-month prison sentence he was still serving when your reached out to him in 2009 with the notation that "it's been a while since we chatted."
4. You assert of Epstein that "had I known about him, I would have never pursued a meeting." As I point out above, your meeting with Epstein occurred almost 4 years after he had been convicted of procuring a child for prostitution, was a registered sex offender, and had served 13 months of an 18-month sentence in Florida. Epstein's reputation and criminal history were widely documented in media. To believe that neither you—given your reputation as one of the most astute, innovative and sophisticated entrepreneurs in the world—nor your staff had any notion of Epstein's past is asking my readers to put aside their common sense. If you didn't know of Epstein's past in 2009, your note makes no mention of whether you believe you had an obligation to know.
5. Finally, you say that "KYC is important." KYC refers to "know your customer," and I appreciate you pointing out the importance of that idea. My customer is my audience, and my obligation is to report to my audience the facts, fairly and accurately, without worrying whom it might displease or make uncomfortable. I believe I've done that in this article. If my article got any facts wrong, I urge you to say so and I'll acknowledge any errors and correct them.
If you'd like to continue this discussion, I welcome your response.
Sincerely,
Paul von Zielbauer
AGING with STRENGTH
Mr. Diamandis glibly overlooks the emails that he sent to Epstein in 2009 when he tries to deflect and defend his “innocence”. When you can’t defend yourself with the truth, the next step is to blame others for your obvious and questionable conduct. Good rebuttal, Paul.
Hi Paul, 1. >>> Thank you. Yes, the vast majority of the have nothing to do with me… and I have no idea why they are flagged.
2. >>>You are correct, I was introduced to Epstein at a group dinner hosted by Jon Bockman at TED Monterey, organized by Brockman for all the writers that Brock-Inc represented. . We introduced at that time but we didn’t connect beyond an initial introduction. It was later that Brockman suggested that I approach Epstein for XPRIZE Funding, which I did, per the emails you’ve seen. Regarding a first name basis… I’m basically on a first name basis with everyone I know or have met. There is no signal in that statement, is there?
3. >>>As noted the “friendly connection with Epstein” occurred through a TED Dinner, once, again via Brockman. Yup, unfortunately I was totally unaware of his shameful conviction, and no one else I knew had flagged that for me. If I had known, I would not have engaged.
4. >>>Yes, you’ve made that point, and that doesn’t change the fact that I didn’t know.
5. >>>Yes, of course, KYC is the wrong term for me to use. Perhaps Due Diligence is a better term.
Mr. Diamandis:
You’re above statement misrepresents my above rebuttal to you. By writing, in your point 2 above, "You are correct," you falsely imply that I'm the one asserting that you were passively introduced to Epstein at a dinner at TED Monterey. However, that's your assertion, not mine. Your statement, intentional or otherwise, conflates your assertions with my reporting, potentially confusing readers.
So, to clarify the record: I reported, based on publicly available documents, is that you had a friendly correspondence with Epstein in 2009, and that the text of your 2009 email demonstrates that your connection to Epstein goes back further in time.
Notably, neither of your replies today to my reporting thus far acknowledge the 2009 email, and in fact appear to try to contradict the length of your Epstein acquaintance by stating you were "introduced" to him only in 2013.
I believe the public would welcome your unambiguous explanation of the full length and nature of your connection to Epstein, from 2009 and earlier.
As always, I welcome your reply.
Sincerely,
Paul von Zielbauer