Which emails in the Epstein files reference medical professionals or health topics, and what do those exchanges say?
Executive summary
The newly released Epstein files include multiple email threads that explicitly reference medical professionals, medications and other health topics — most prominently a trove of exchanges involving Dr. Peter Attia that mention drugs such as metformin, statins and clomiphene (Clomid) and include photographs of medication bottles — and they have prompted public and professional scrutiny [1] [2] [3]. Other documents touch on medical matters in different ways, from a draft resignation lamenting procurement of medicine for Bill Gates to detailed post‑mortem and medical examiner materials in the files; none of the items, as currently reported, provide evidence that those medical references establish criminal medical conduct by named clinicians, and reporting limits what can be definitively concluded [4] [5] [6].
1. Peter Attia: medication chatter, frequency and defensive statements
Peter Attia’s name appears repeatedly in the released correspondence — reported as more than 1,700 mentions — and many of the cited emails are informal exchanges that include medical topics and personal remarks rather than formal clinical documentation, provoking strong reactions from peers and the public [7] [1]. Attia has publicly apologized for “embarrassing, tasteless and indefensible” messages, denied being Epstein’s treating physician, said he sometimes answered “general medical questions” and claimed naiveté about the extent of Epstein’s crimes; those statements are part of the public record cited in reporting on the files [1] [8].
2. The “Got a fresh shipment” thread: metformin, images and tone
A widely circulated 2015 thread with the subject line “Got a fresh shipment” includes a photograph — redacted in the DOJ release — that several outlets report Attia identified as bottles of metformin he had received, with Epstein replying “me too” in the exchange; Attia later said the image showed his own medication rather than anything illicit [3] [9]. Reporting also notes other Attia‑Epstein messages discuss medications more broadly — outlets cite mentions of statins and Clomid — but the threads are conversational and do not amount to clinical records or prescriptions appearing in the released corpus as reported [1] [2].
3. Mentions beyond Attia: Gates, Oz, examiners and medical files
The release contains other health‑adjacent materials: a pair of unsigned emails in Epstein’s account purportedly drafted as a resignation complaining about procuring medicine for Bill Gates, documents that reference a redacted email involving Dr. Mehmet Oz, and an 89‑page post‑mortem report and medical examiner material related to Epstein’s death — the latter is distinct from the correspondence and has been highlighted by BBC and others for the details it contains [4] [8] [5]. Reporting notes the DOJ also redacted some “medical information” in its release, underlining that some clinical or health data were withheld [6].
4. What the health‑related exchanges say — and what they do not
Taken together, the health‑themed emails largely read as informal social correspondence that references medications, health foibles and occasional procurement or photos of pills; multiple outlets emphasize tone and context (raunchy, jocular, defensive) rather than documentation of medical treatment or illicit medical practice [2] [9]. None of the mainstream reports in this set of sources presents the released emails as proof that named doctors engaged in criminal medical activity with Epstein; instead, reporting frames the exchanges as ethically awkward, professionally compromising, or personally embarrassing and has prompted reputational and institutional responses [1] [7] [8].
5. Limits of the publicly reported record and competing readings
Coverage makes clear that the DOJ release is massive but redacted, that many emails are stream‑of‑conscious drafts or unsigned items and that context is sometimes missing or ambiguous [6] [2]. Some critics and commentators interpret the medication references as evidence of improper intimacy between influential figures and Epstein, while others stress the difference between social correspondence and medical practice; reporting shows both the outrage from medical peers and Attia’s denial and apology, revealing competing narratives and reputational stakes [7] [1]. The sources here do not supply forensic clinical records proving medical misconduct, and they document only the specific excerpts and summaries journalists have highlighted in the released files [6] [5].