Epstein Files: A Functional Medicine Response

Sarah and Brad argue that the functional medicine model, which already explores root causes, should embed routine ACE screening. Sarah describes her usual focus on victims—looking for signs like autoimmune disease or insulin resistance—but Brad points out that perpetrators also often have elevated ACE scores, creating a cycle. Brad recommends using the ACE questionnaire as an ‘entree’ to larger conversations about current relationships and behaviour, not as a one‑off checklist. They believe this can reveal how patriarchal and dominance behaviours worsen a patient's own health, as the physiological derangement from shame and guilt manifests as chronic disease. This reframes screening as not just protective for potential victims, but also a therapeutic opportunity for men who are engaging in harmful behaviour.

Sarah shares that reading victim testimonies from the Epstein files revealed that girls as young as 14 presented to physicians with multiple STIs and were prescribed lithium or Xanax instead of being asked about safety. She calls this a catastrophic failure of the medical system. She now believes that every clinician—not just physicians but nurses, school nurses—must be trained to ask direct questions about abuse, with the potential perpetrator escorted out. She says she has nurses commenting on her social media that they never received such education. The conversation frames this as a structural change: we cannot wait for a tragedy like Sandy Hook before building safeguards; the Epstein files must prompt immediate adoption of this practice everywhere.

Brad explains that traditional masculine conditioning rewards power‑over and emotional detachment, leading to either domination or surrendered passivity. When called out—as he was by his daughter—the dysregulated response is often escalation. He argues that the true antidote is not to swing to an overly accommodating, boundary‑less stance, but to integrate both strength and emotional availability. He notes that in his men's groups, many men literally cannot answer 'How are you feeling?' or put words to being upset. So the first step is awareness, then regulation tools. He names breath work, nature immersion, and creative outlets like guitar as examples, but emphasises the tool must be individual. Once regulated, the man has the capacity to face what his behaviour has cost him and others. This is positioned as the prerequisite for any real apology or change, including for someone like Peter Attia.

Kara describes how, after years of practicing advanced functional medicine—including randomised trials on reversing biological age—she kept hitting a wall. Patients would improve but not fully heal until their deeper emotional drivers were addressed. She saw that beliefs formed from trauma dictated whether someone reached for alcohol, food, or other numbing agents, and that no amount of laboratory correction could override these. She therefore trained in Hakomi, a method that uses mindfulness to access and reorganise core beliefs held in the body. She notes that when patients finally process these patterns, they naturally reduce harmful behaviours and reconnect with their moral compass. She and Brad see this as essential for creating a world where people can collaborate rather than dominate, and she explicitly links it to the need to nourish the 'human spirit' in an AI‑saturated future.

Brad Jacobs describes his men's work as a direct response to the crisis the Epstein files expose. He runs both in‑person and online groups over 12 weeks. They assess baseline physiological measures (likely including biomarkers, possibly epigenetic or metabolic panels) as well as psychometric questionnaires on masculinity constructs. After the programme, they retest. Brad says the results have been 'fantastic' and that the data show men can change both physically and emotionally. He sees this as building a framework for healthy masculinity—what he calls 'M2'—that integrates the traditional strengths (protection, provision, decisiveness) with emotional awareness and regulation, replacing the shadow of domination and emotional shut‑down. He explicitly positions this as the antidote to the patriarchal behaviours that enabled the Epstein network.

Kara shares a case from early in her practice: a female lawyer commuting daily to New York City, raising kids, with all the objective signs of stress. Despite doing all the labs, supplements, and exercise, improvements stayed stuck until the patient was ready to look at her life choices. Kara says it is the physician's job to keep talking about it, 'gently', and to keep holding the mirror. She describes the skill of staying present even when the patient opts not to engage, and the 'miracles' that occurred when the patient finally made changes. This case became a teaching paradigm for her about the process of readiness and the need to weave psycho‑social inquiry into standard medical care.

Sarah describes how, when she reflects on the 14–16‑year‑old girls she treated for birth control, her initial question was never about safety. After reading victim testimonies from the Epstein files—girls as young as 14 presenting with multiple STIs who were never protected by the healthcare encounters—she immediately changed her own practice. She stresses that getting the potential perpetrator out of the room is essential, and that all clinicians need this training. She frames this as an ethical obligation, not an optional add‑on, and links it directly to the failure of the medical system to intervene.

Sarah notes that her focus has always been on finding victims—looking for autoimmune disease, insulin resistance, depression, PTSD. Brad points out that the same elevated ACE score that predicts disease in victims also predicts violent behaviour in men. He argues that the perpetrator's physiology is deranged by shame and guilt unless they are completely pathological, and that this makes ACE screening a window into stopping the cycle. They recommend asking about childhood experiences and current relationships, and using the conversation as an entry point, rather than directly accusing. They believe this fits within the functional medicine model, which already seeks root causes.

Kara explains that as she searched for root causes in her patients, she continually found that psycho‑emotional factors underlay their thinking, beliefs, behaviours, and lifestyle choices. Without addressing those, supplements and exercise protocols had limited impact. She enrolled in a multi‑year Hakomi training (a mindfulness‑based somatic psychotherapy) and reports that when people heal at this level, they naturally reduce addictive behaviours and can reconnect with their moral compass. She describes it as necessary for collaboration and survival in an interconnected world, especially as AI takes over technical tasks and the 'human spirit' becomes what is left to nourish.

Sarah explains that boards look for illegal acts—a DUI might suspend a licence, but 'fawning' over a known predator likely won't. Brad notes that Peter Attia's follower count rose from 1.57M to 1.6M during the scandal, suggesting the public is not yet holding him accountable. They worry that business-as-usual will prevail. The conversation emphasises that silence supports the status quo, and that continuing the conversation, calling for full transparency, and collectively demanding higher standards are the only tools left. Sarah mentions CBS still listing him as a contributor, illustrating how institutions protect their assets.

Sarah notes that people have asked her, 'If I don't follow Peter Attia, who should I follow?' She suggests Kara Fitzgerald as someone with integrity—who has run randomised trials showing biological age reduction—but highlights the deeper question: how do you know someone is congruent? She asks whether it matters if a nutrition influencer is seen eating fast food, and whether the personal and professional should align. She argues health is sacred and the position of giving advice must be taken seriously. While she doesn't have a complete answer, she insists we need a framework. Kara adds that a refusal to acknowledge uncertainty is a red flag, given the nuance in science around seed oils, statins, rapamycin, etc.