The PR Breakdown with Molly McPherson

The Epstein Emails: Why Peter Attia's Response Failed

• Molly McPherson • Episode 349

Share episode

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:

Molly McPherson:

Well, another week and another batch of Epstein files for everyone to scour. I have to highlight one of those stories. 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. This week on the PR breakdown, Peter Atia, a credibility crisis in real time. Who is Peter Atia? He is a longevity doctor. He has a membership where you can pay$19 a month. He graduated from Stanford University School of Medicine in 2001. He also studied general surgery at Johns Hopkins Hospital. So there is definitely medical training. However, he did not complete it. He did not get board certified as a doctor. 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. So that's important and that's formidable. But he left net clinical training for management consulting. That is a hard pivot. 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. Do I judge the career trajectory? No, lots of people take twists and turns. But it's his ascension to being the internet's favorite doctor. There is a misclassification with him. People assume that he's a practicing doctor. 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. What he is is an influencer. And he's an influencer who has all of his eggs in one basket. 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. Plenty of time for Peter Atia to know precisely who Jeffrey Epstein was, or at least what he was about. This medical provider who was featured on 60 Minutes, who was also weeks ago named one of the new CBS contributors. Let's just look at his response. 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. That means a lot of people online were talking about him. A lot of medical doctors who also have an online presence talking about him. He came out with a response on X. 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. 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. 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. This is from Atiya. And there was a redacted photo. And then Epstein replies me too with a redacted photo. And then Atia responds, please tell me you found that pic. Okay. Who's referring to a fresh shipment? Since the photos are redacted, we don't know what that fresh shipment is. But Epstein attaching a photo of an adult woman makes it a little murky for him. Other emails include Atia saying he goes into quote, J-E withdrawal when I don't see him, end quote. So that's language that shows how close he was to Epstein. 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. 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. So clearly it's a sexual joke about women, it's demeaning. 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. He is selling his framework of reputation and decision making. His pitch is all about longevity, about the long term, how what you do in the short term pays off in the long term. You have to optimize for what matters. Yet his emails show years of casual comfort with a man whose 2008 public conviction is on the record. That's over 10 years. 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. Particularly people are saying, well, who's this ATIA guy? Or people who love ATIA and follow ATIA go, well, wait a minute, what's this about? I love this guy. And then they find out that he's not a board certified doctor, that he didn't complete his residency. That also calls into question like why he is the internet's favorite doctor. So let's do a ruthless fair read of his email. I'm just gonna go chunk by chunk. As I mentioned, he posted this on X. He writes, the following email is what I sent my team last night. I sent a similar version to my patients also. So this is one letter, multiple uses. Quote, you've put your trust, your credibility, and your hard work into what we have built together. Where I'm gonna give him credit right off the bat is that he is writing a letter to his staff. Well, allegedly. 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. So if this first letter was to his internals, that was a good move. 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. So every goodwill that I gave him, I'm taking most of it back. The problem with that first line is that it centers his project, his ecosystem first. In a scandal adjacent to Epstein, audiences up front want to know, they want to understand moral clarity. They want to know about harm. They want to understand about boundaries, they want to know facts immediately. My framework, the indestructible PR framework, own it, explain it, promise it. That's not what he did. His first line is about him. It's about him. So then he says, and I take that responsibility seriously. So the problem here is that it's a claim without proof. I take this seriously, and crisis communication is just wallpaper. If the audience could ask, if you took this seriously, why were you emailing Jeffrey Epstein like that and staying close to Jeffrey Epstein? Why did it take you a couple days to even send this email? Next line quote, you deserve a complete and honest account of what did and did not happen. So already we're getting the framing. He's letting us know that he wants to be honest. And for people listening to the audio podcast, I have air quotes right there. 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. They start to spend time on the specific, the micro specifics where they can. Because if they're micro-specific in certain areas, then they hope that spreads to the entire crisis. But nowadays people are a lot smarter than that. And the problem is that it tees up like a courtroom style narrative. Did this happen? This didn't happen. It's as if he's preparing to litigate the issue. So if he were in a court of law, that might be fine. But it lands very cold, legalese, and also very calculated reputationally. So right off the bat, it's not working for him. We finally get after a couple lines, an apology, but it's it's an apology disguised as humility. Quote, I apologize that I did not get this out sooner, but I want to be thorough. So the thorough is his way of saying, I want to be honest right away. But what's most important here is the truth. But the truth is most important to Peter Utia. What he really wants to know is how much damage is all of this going to cause me. That's all he's looking for. The thorough, and also thorough can be a trap because the longer you talk, the more seams people can pick at. 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. Next, quote, the purpose of the DOJ releasing these documents is clear. Okay. The problem, he's positioning himself as an authority on the DOJ intent. That looks like spin. How would he know? He doesn't work for the DOJ. Also, he's narrowing the conversation there to criminal categories because it's a place where he knows he can separate himself. He's saying right away the framing, Epstein, he's criminal. That's not me. But Atia does hear what a lot of people do in a crisis when at the center of it. They're responding to where the fury isn't. The public scorn are the emails. It's not worrying about Peter Atia being a criminal. Next, quote, to identify individuals who participated in criminal activity, enabled it, or witnessed it. Again, it's an artificially tight box. The audience, his followers are judging him morally, his boundaries, his taste, his discernment, his power chasing. At least that's what I'm judging him on. His social complicity. So he's framing the crisis only as criminal involvement. So people hear, oh, I'm not a criminal. I'm fine. Everything's good here. That's not how trust works. That's not how it works. Quote, I'm not in any of those categories, and there's no evidence to the contrary. Okay. Okay, Peter Atia. It's not a legal filing. Okay. This isn't human reckoning. But what you're doing is you're inviting the challenge here. Okay, there's no evidence of criminal activity, but one, it may make people want to look for some. So some journalists, not at CBS, might want to look for some more, could be tempting to journalists or internet sleuths out there. But again, he's deflecting and throwing a big red herring out there. But I think the internet's wiser than that. Okay, so now he's going into the denials. 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. But he's saying, to be clear. Anyone who lies to you usually says to you, to be clear. Then he says, I was not involved in any criminal activity. Again, wrong battlefield. The question is not asking, did you commit crimes? It's why did you maintain a friendship and banter with a convicted sex offender? Two, my interactions with Epstein had nothing to do with the sexual abuse or exploitation of anyone. The problem had nothing to do with is an absolute skit audited, but it ignores the ethical concern. What does nothing to do with mean? And maybe you had nothing to do with it, but you're still morally compromised. And that's the problem that people are gonna have. Next, quote, I was never on his plane, never on his island, and never present at any sex parties. Okay. Classic deny the headline move. 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. The photographs of him. That is damning beyond belief. He's trying to get out of that where he can, but it exists in emails. It's a subtle difference, but a huge one. My interactions with Epstein had nothing to do with the sexual abuse or exploitation of anyone. 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. Quote, I was never on his plane, never on his island, and never present at any sex parties. Classic deny the headline move. People aren't judging Atia for where he went. They're judging him for why he stayed connected at all with Epstein. Quote, that said, I apologize and regret putting myself in a position where emails are now public. You're framing the harm as the emails becoming public, not the emails existing. You don't want to frame the people as a problem when you are the problem. Quote, some of them embarrassing, tasteless, indefensible. Strong adjectives there, but very indefensible is powerful, yeah. But he spends so much of the statement defending his context and his intent that it just doesn't work here. And then he says, and that's on me. That's a good line. I mean, it's closer to accountability, but it's immediately undercut by the long explanation that follows. Quote, I accept that reality and the humiliation that comes with it. This risks self-pity. The humiliation is all about him. The moral center of the story is in the victims and in the complicity, not in his discomfort. Next, getting into the fresh shipment explanation. He says, quote, I want to start by directly addressing the email thread that I've been asked about the most. Reactive framing. He's letting the internet pick the agenda. Also asked about the most really sounds closer to this is what everybody else is talking about on the internet. So it's not about values, it's about the velocity of that one comment. Quote In June 2015, subject line got a fresh shipment with photographed bottles of metaphorin. Now, I believe that that photo has been redacted. 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. 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. He replied, attached a photograph of an adult woman. The adult is doing the heavy lifting here. It signals that he knows the implication of what people know about Jeffrey Epstein. And it's definitely understandable. But it does trigger a new question of why was that exchange acceptable at all with Jeffrey Epstein? Quote, I responded with crude, tasteless banter. He labels it, but does not name what is revealed. Banter is instead of these hard, crude emails. Quote, at the time I understood this exchange as juvenile, not a reference to anything dark or harmful. The problem, this is the I didn't know defense by another name. But with Epstein claiming that sexualized messaging is juvenile and harmless is a very hard sell when everybody at that time knew he was. And also juvenile from a physician in a professional orbit is a really, really bad look for this guy. So it implies deep immaturity and judgment. And that's what the critics are saying about him. And that's the problem. All right. I had a little exposure to prominent people. The level of access was novel to me. Quote, everything about him seems excessive and exclusive. Largest home, Boeing 727, powers with parties with the most powerful. Still caught up and impressed with Jeffrey Epstein. It's weird. It's like a brag-adjacent glamour. You don't want to be seduced and sound enchanted by someone. Like we're actually seeing why he got swept into it. Quote, I treated that access as something to be quiet about. It's a confession of secrecy. He's saying that I kept secrets. And he's someone who is just exposed in the secrets. What I was referring to was the discretion commanded by these circles. He's validating the critique that elite circles protect themselves through silence. So self-incrimination. What I wrote reads terribly, and I own that. Okay, a strong line. But again, he keeps circling back to how it reads, not what it reveals in his judgment. All right. Then some other things. Like between summer 2014 and 2019, I met him seven or eight occasions at his New York City home. Only seven or eight is that minimizing language. Also, his home is not a neutral professional setting. Repeated visits to a convicted sex offender's home is hard to square with. I was naive. I never visited his island or ranch, never flew on any of his planes. Again, he keeps returning back to the geography. It just suggests that he knows exactly what he was doing. It's just shorthand for guilt. Quote, I was not his doctor. If he was not his doctor, then what's the relationship? He should have kept that out. It opens a big hole. Several times I answered general medical questions and recommended other providers. So he provided medical guidance anyway. It's a boundary muddle. Next, shortly after we met, I asked him directly about his 2008 conviction. Okay, so you're trying to show diligence, but it also confirms that you knew that Epstein had a conviction. Doesn't work. He characterized it as a prostitution-related charges. Again, Tia is minimizing Epstein's minimization. So again, it's repeating Epstein's minimization. He's like laundering the framing. 2018, I came to learn this was grossly minimized, naive to believe him. 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. Quote To be clear, I never witnessed illegal behavior and never saw anyone who appeared underage. Again, the I didn't see it defensed. Even if you weren't in the room and you were seeing it with your own eyes, people knew what he was about. Oh, this is so frustrating. Let's see. So now he's talking about the accountability attempt where he's trying to make a difference here. At quote, at that point, I told him directly he needed to accept responsibility. Irony. The problem here, again, a very strange posture. Why is Atia advising Epstein on accountability? Again, it's suggesting that closeness. Quote, in hindsight, attempting to facilitate accountability was a mistake. Disengement should have been the only appropriate response. So finally, in his letter, he gets to the right principle, but it comes way too late with way too much explanation. And also in hindsight, reads like, I understand this now because I got caught. You guys found me out. So then in the last section here, he says, quote, nothing is meant to minimize the harm. Again, necessary, but sounds like a disclaimer. Quote, I'm not asking for a pass, not asking anyone to ignore the emails. Okay, good tactic. I actually like that line. But it still clashes with the fact that the statement is in practice a structured attempt to reduce negative influencing. Saying I'm not asking for a pass doesn't mean that you're not trying. And clearly he's trying for a pass. Quote, the man I am today would not write them and would not associate with Epstein at all. Uh growth framing is not proof. It just also invites a very obvious question. Well, when did you become that man then? What was the trigger? What made you become a decent man who doesn't interact with convicted sex offenders? Because the timeline does matter. Quote, whatever growth I've had does not erase the emails. No, it's as if he's wishing it did. But again, it's not about the emails, it's about his behavior that was exposed when the emails were exposed. Quote, I won't ask anyone to defend me. Sounds noble, uh, but it also functions as pressure. Remember, this is a letter to his team. So that is his way of saying, please defend me. 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. He is in a public credibility crisis. But everything in this letter to his staff reads like containment, which is usually what happens when people are found out in a crisis. So the big picture problem here for Peter Atia, his statement is written for legal clarity and personal remorse. But his crisis is about judgment. 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. Because perhaps he just found out that it was too small for him. He didn't want the drudgery, the day-to-day drudgery. He didn't want to deal with patience. He just didn't want to deal. He wanted to be a bigger guy, a bigger name. He wanted proximity to power and where he is right now. And he keeps trying to win with the I didn't do crimes, I didn't mean it that way. But why were you comfortable there for a decade with Epstein? The gap is why it's a horrible response from Peter Atia. It answers questions he wished people asked, but not the questions that people are asking, which is very common in a crisis. What's answering the questions no one is asking? So, what does this mean for Peter Atia? Well, as I mentioned, he's been called the internet's favorite doctor, but he isn't dispensing health advice as a medical doctor. So why this is problematic for him is that he's a media personality. All the followers he has can be gone like that, because now his personal choices become the product, not his product himself. So Peter cannot sell all these years of rigorous thinking when he clearly wasn't thinking, at least for the last 10 years. So what's gonna happen to him? I think if it was any other network, he would have been gone by now. The fact that CBS is still vacillating on him just boggles my mind. Atia did not commit a crime, but the optics on him are unsalvageable. Any other network would have dropped him by now. And if CBS doesn't, well, what does that say? What does that say about CBS? So the irony here, the outlive guy should not live this crisis. I want you from this podcast listening to be asking questions of the people you follow. I want people to be more discerning about the people they follow. I'm not a big proponent of cancel culture. I'm not saying that Peter Tia should lose everything. He shouldn't lose everything. He can keep doing what he's doing. But I'm saying if you're following him, what are the values that you're following from him? So there is a reputation lesson here. 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. This letter didn't cut it at all. He is covering. There is not full accountability. He could still be on the air. Peter Tia has built a career in telling people how to live longer, think better, optimize harder. But his proximity to Epstein for so many years calls into question everything that he has said. CBS, the jury's still out on them. 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. Especially when those choices involve staying close to someone whose harm is public knowledge. Sales won't fix that. And silence and deflection definitely doesn't fix that at all. So we'll see what happens to Peter Hatea. But if you follow one thing, I say is this just be discerning on who you follow. And it's okay to cast moral judgment on people who make morally ambiguous decisions. All right, everyone, that's it for this week on the podcast. Thanks so much for listening. Bye for now.

Head Shot

Molly McPherson

Host

Podcasts we love

Check out these other fine podcasts recommended by us, not an algorithm.