My newsletter is the #1 conservative blog on Substack — recommended by over 312 other Substack authors.
Get 24% off now to celebrate the 2024 election!
Within a few days of President Trump’s announcement from the White House of a “major deal” with Big Pharma over drug prices — an event with the reprehensible CEO Albert Bourla from Pfizer as the featured guest — I received an outrageous email from a British publication called Nature magazine and its “chief careers editor” Jack Leeming.
Here’s the email.
I’m an editor for Nature magazine, working on a story about how Substack has become a popular place for those involved in the anti-vaccine movement and other areas generally considered to be outside of the scientific consensus. You’re mentioned as one of the writers within that movement.
The general thrust of the piece is that Substack has become immensely popular in this area because it lacks content moderation and allows relatively easy monetisation (as well as of course providing a robust newsletter platform). Could you speak to that?
More specifically those we spoke to allege:
-
Substack writers including yourself endanger public health through the promotion of anti-vaccine information that isn’t rooted in accepted, peer-reviewed science.
-
You and other Substackers are profiting from disseminating this information through Substack’s monetisation mechanisms.
-
In general, anti-vaccine stances are supported by a small body of evidence compared to the larger weight of evidence for vaccination.
We also write that:
Finally, we repeat some allegations or news published elsewhere:
-
You are a broadcaster who was fired from your role at Newsmax (where you worked from 2020-2022) and was banned from Twitter for COVID misinformation.
-
You have since rejoined Twitter/X.
Would you be able to respond to these points by Wednesday 8th October to ensure timely reflection of your responses in the piece?
Do let me know if any [sic] questions and thanks for your time.
This post originally appeared here at Emerald Robinson.
