Three Doctors We Could No Longer Endorse

We learned from all three. We respected their expertise (and still do). So why did we remove their work from our health resource?

When integrity matters more than expertise, reputation, or influence.

Yesterday, we removed yet another physician from this website.

Thankfully, there are many left.

This is the third physician we have removed in as many months. Each time, the decision has been difficult. Each time, we have wrestled with the same question:

Can we continue to feature someone’s work when we can no longer stand behind the person or the conduct associated with it?

For us, the answer has ultimately been no.

Integrity comes before expertise. Before reputation. Before influence.

This is our statement about editorial ethics and trust.

The first

The first case involved the Epstein files.

Hundreds of emails between an American medical doctor (one with a substantial following) came to light. We won’t name him here. We removed his website, book and podcast from our resource.

We sat with the decision for several days after the revelations became public.

His medical work had been valuable to us. We had learned from him. We loved his book… But ultimately, we couldn’t ignore the fact that by featuring his work on Double-zero, we were also lending our endorsement to him.

Whatever the distinction between professional and personal conduct, we found ourselves asking:

How separate can the two really be when someone is a public figure whose influence extends far beyond the consulting room?

Perhaps those in positions of public trust should be held to a higher standard?

For us, the answer is yes.

The second

The second was another American physician, also with a very substantial following.

He has decades of professional standing and is widely respected.

Then a UK doctor publicly described in detail, on her Substack, what she described as ‘inappropriate behaviour’ towards her at a conference.

What made this particularly difficult was that she had held him in enormous admiration. She believed in him. She trusted him. He was a mentor to her.

She was brave enough to speak publicly about what happened.

We felt we had no choice but to remove our endorsement of his work.

The foundation he established remains, because it is operated by American medical institutions and is separate to his personal work.

Again, we valued his work hugely.

Again, that wasn’t enough.

And now, the third

This brings me to number three: another renowned American physician.

This time, the controversy concerns the COVID-19 vaccination programme and pregnant women.

In recent days Dr Peter McCullough has described the matter as “public health malpractice.”

Nationwide reporting and discussion surrounding previously unearthed text messages have raised serious questions about what was known at the time and how those concerns were handled by the decision-makers.

The issue, as we understand it, is whether they had information that could have materially affected how the risks and uncertainties were communicated to pregnant women – and whether that information was adequately disclosed.

That distinction matters.

Evidence should be communicated openly.

There is an ethical question of transparency here.

The physician’s work has now been removed from our resource.

We don’t have to agree with every medical opinion. But I do need to believe I can trust the integrity of the person.

This isn’t about being perfect

All three doctors taught us things.

We valued their work (and still do).

We respected their knowledge (and still do).

We benefited from information they had shared.

Removing their work doesn’t somehow erase those things.

But Double-zero isn’t simply a library of interesting information. By placing someone’s work on our resource, we are putting our name alongside theirs.

That creates a relationship of trust.

You can acknowledge the value of someone’s expertise while deciding that their conduct or questions around integrity make it impossible for you to continue endorsing their work.

And that is precisely why integrity matters.

Integrity matters to us

Perhaps I should explain why this principle matters so much to us:

We believe we have to be above reproach.

Not perfect. Not incapable of making mistakes. Not immune from criticism.

But honest, transparent and willing to hold ourselves to the same standards we expect of others.

That is particularly important with Double-zero because we are a charity. Our only income is donations.

We have been offered sponsorships.

We have been offered affiliate links.

We have been offered payment to feature particular people, products or organisations.

We have said no.

Not because sponsorships or affiliate relationships are inherently wrong. They can be entirely legitimate.

But for us, independence matters.

If someone gives us money, we don’t want our readers wondering whether that influenced what we included, what we recommended or what we left out.

We don’t want our resource to become a marketplace where visibility can be bought.

And we don’t want anyone to have to ask whether a recommendation is there because we believe in it – or because someone paid us to put it there.

Our income comes from people who choose to support what we are trying to do.

That comes with a responsibility.

If we ask people to trust us with their donations, we have to be worthy of that trust.

We have to be above reproach.

And that standard applies to the people whose work we choose to feature.

Integrity is the line

Life is rarely as black and white as we might like it to be.

And that is perhaps the hardest part of making decisions like these.

You don’t need to hate someone to decide that you can no longer endorse their work.

You don’t need to believe that everything they’ve ever said is wrong.

You don’t need to deny the value of what they taught you.

You simply need to decide whether you are comfortable putting their name next to yours.

For all three American doctors, ultimately, the answer was no.

And that makes us sad.

But sadness isn’t the same as regret.

We can value someone’s work and still decide that we cannot endorse the person behind it.

Withdrawal of endorsement is not the same thing as declaring a person worthless or everything they have taught you false.

For us, integrity eclipses expertise.

It eclipses reputation.

It eclipses influence.

It even eclipses the value of information we have personally found useful.

Because once trust is compromised, what exactly are we endorsing?

That is the question we keep coming back to.

Integrity is all.

The way to right wrongs is to turn the light of truth upon them.

Ida B Wells

She shared this powerful guiding principle in an 1892 speech, reflecting her life’s work as a pioneering investigative journalist and anti-lynching activist.

Perhaps that is ultimately what this is about.

Not perfection.

Not punishment.

Not cancelling people because we disagree with them.

Simply being willing to turn the light on, including on ourselves and ask whether what we are doing is consistent with the standards we claim to hold.

Let’s not get bitter – but better.

For us, integrity has to come first.