168 Comments

TLDR: Fear sells! The CDC, Fauci, Wallensky, Hotez, and Jetelina have never been wrong. We should censor and ignore anyone who challenges them. Follow the science unquestioningly, that’s how religion (oops I meant science) works! https://yuribezmenov.substack.com/p/how-to-follow-the-science-join-the-resistanc

Expand full comment

I dont know anything about this woman

but I shudder to think what positions she tweeted and shilled during the covid hysteria

Maybe she is one of the goods guys but odds are, no, she is a shill

Sadly, no rational human can ever trust a epidimiologist ever again

Expand full comment

Yes, she is a shill for the Big Pharma narrative.

Expand full comment

I’ve followed her and Eric Topol pretty much since their Substack inceptions. She is most assuredly not one of the good guys.

Expand full comment

She says she's an epidemiologist. Yes. And why can't we trust an epidemiologist? Science isn't set in stone. It's always studying, revealing, changing, updating. That's what the process is about. I haven't read her posts, but she likely stated her credentials & experience there. What about yours? So that you can "shudder"?

Expand full comment

> why can't we trust an epidemiologist

Because the years 2020-2022 happened, they weren't right about one single thing, they lied when they were proven wrong by reality, and they continue to maintain that they were and are right after wrecking or ending millions of lives.

But she's got a credential. This is the level of thinking you're bringing to the table.

Expand full comment

👏👏👏👏👏👏

Expand full comment

They were right that covid-19 is highly contagious. It spread very fast.

Expand full comment

That's true. But I think the virus actually began to "spread" around the world in October 2019. So if this virus IS this contagious, how many people had already been infected by the lockdowns of mid-March 2020?

Tens of millions probably. So the lockdowns to "slow" or "prevent" "spread" weren't even needed and shouldn't have happened. Also, millions of people had already acquired natural immunity so they didn't need any "vaccine."

You can read much more about the copious evidence of "early spread" at my Substack newsletter.

Also, I was banned from Facebook because I challenged the statements of Fauci ... so I didn't get that big "Facebook boost" this author did.

Expand full comment

No, that's not my thinking, only about a credential. That only is one part of the equation. I'm going by my own experience. In health care. We'll have to agree to disagree. I won't demonize epidemiologists. After all, it's called the "practice" of medicine.

Expand full comment
Jun 29, 2023·edited Oct 18, 2023

because they are full of shit and chubby Hotez is in the worst meatball shape of any doctor better yet, he's a shill and I'm gonna make a list of these lying 🤥 monsters who dare to hurt innocent citizens.

Expand full comment

whats wrong with you?

Expand full comment

Some of us get a little ornery when people who agitated for us to be locked in our homes, watch family members die over Zoom calls, get screamed at by lunatics for not wearing masks (that didn't work), and would have been happy if we were thrown into train cars for not getting an untested gene therapy (that didn't work) get held up as admirable heroes spreading the truth.

Expand full comment

And we are not about to let the rest of the go along to get along-ers forget it!

Expand full comment

I was treated like a second class citizen for years because of people like this imposing punishment on the unvaccinated

oh and the "vaccine" didnt even work

Expand full comment

For some reason Substack needs to encourage the growth of these people whose most recent articles are focused on how to avoid all debate and claiming that questioning authority=harassment

Expand full comment

These people’s financial success on Substack allows all the rest of us to be here too.

And with our rights to free speech, we can examine and expose any untruths they publish.

I’d call that the perfect balance.

Expand full comment

Not when people like her have hundreds of thousands of readers and the rest got nothing.

Expand full comment

I see both sides here, but it would be refreshing if Substack promoted some unknown dissidents. I could sure use more traffic. :-)

Expand full comment

The rest got plenty.

Expand full comment

90% of substack writers would laugh their asses off at your ridiculous wrong assumption.

Expand full comment

Perhaps you struggle a little to comprehend nuances of meaning.

Expand full comment

I strongly suggest you reading that article again. It looks like you missed the bottom half where I say this is incredibly important. Having questions isn’t the same thing as being doxxed, stalked, hacked, and harassed.

Expand full comment

Everyone here stands against doxxing, stalking, and hacking, but open debate and questioning does not constitute harassment. What would you say to those who lost their jobs because of unscientific and unethical mandates? Or whose kids have learning loss from closed and masked schools? Or watched family members die over Zoom calls? Or suffered side effects from the covid jab?

Expand full comment

Being locked in your home for two years, forced into an ineffective mask, bullied into taking untested gene therapies, losing your business, and watching family die over video calls, because of things you said and supported, tends to make people a little angry.

Can you imagine?

Expand full comment

There will always be crazy people on both sides of any topic issuing death threats. The difference is that "your side" has TV anchors suggesting my family be denied all medical care and yet has the nerve to cry victim because "trumpluvver69", who lost his job due to your policies, makes an idle theat on Twitter.

You feign ignorance of the enormous power diffential to give yourself a victimhood shield.

Expand full comment

Second Yuri’s TLDR: I didn’t read beyond the first sentence CDC appeared in. There’s already enough data and RL observation accumulated sufficient to draw a swift conclusion on what . If one’s natural proclivity is to not-run with easily swayed crowds, you’ll probably live longer.

Grow your own audiences organically. Think good and genuinely beneficial thoughts, write to express them clearly and confidently without fear of generating conflict. Your audience will find you simply because they are out there, already in the hunt for anything fresh, absent the stench of group-think.

Expand full comment

Hey I'm glad this is the top comment 👍

Expand full comment

Me too! It gave me a satisfying HA! Because I was surprised that this post was in my notes, more surprised by her latest publication and most surprised by the comments on said publication. Living on a separate planet I guess 🤔

Expand full comment

Sure sounds like she’s denying science, most notably recent findings about the much hyped vaccines.

She’s an epidemiologist and she doesn’t believe it so apparently it can’t possibly be true.

Expand full comment
RemovedJul 5, 2023·edited Jul 5, 2023
Comment removed
Expand full comment

“Kerryn Phelps? Who the hell is she?”

—The entire Western press.

Expand full comment

You are just another writer on this site. You say fear sells to mock her, but you're using fear of the official narrative to make money by pushing your own blog. Everything you say is empty.

Expand full comment

Challenging the lies we were told aka "official narrative" isn't using fear, it takes cojones to publicly challenge the ivory tower parasites like this woman who claims the she's been attacked by antivaxxers 🤣 you claim to be a wordsmith- look up the definition of fear porn, you'll find her name there😉

Expand full comment

When scientists have an argument personal attacks aka ad hominem arguments are considered an admission of ignorance or worse incompetence. No one of substance will listen to your arguments if you doxx the messanger.

Expand full comment
User was temporarily suspended for this comment. Show
Expand full comment

Great information, but @substack, I’d love to hear a similar piece from someone who writes fiction or poetry.

It’s easier to understand how Katelyn grew so quickly, she was a health professional during a pandemic (this is not to take away from her accomplishments at all).

I’d like to understand a fiction writers take

Expand full comment

I had a similar thought. The historical moment she was in was really conducive to what she had to offer. And good for her for finding a platform to offer it!

I don’t write fiction, but I’m interested to see how writers of other, more niche genres and topics gain traction (besides just being great writers).

Expand full comment

> It’s easier to understand how Katelyn grew so quickly, she was a health professional during a pandemic

Growth of doctor influencers like this is a big reason Covid hysteria lasted so long

These random doctors went from being random unknown doctors to having hundreds of thousands of adoring fans... You think they are just going to give that up??

Expand full comment
Comment removed
Expand full comment

Good one 👍🏻

Expand full comment

This is such a great interview.

I'm really glad that Katelyn is right at the top of the Science category on Substack. This is a time when scientists in general and those working in healthcare in particular are getting truly nightmarish amounts of abuse flung at them - which Katelyn just wrote about: https://yourlocalepidemiologist.substack.com/p/harassment-against-scientists-is - so it's heartening to see this kind of mass-support of medical science when it's being delivered in such a compassionate way.

Bravo, Katelyn.

Expand full comment

I'm also happy to see Katelyn interviewed. She's done great work throughout the pandemic.

Expand full comment

Perhaps some of that abuse is justified, such as denying a life saving transplant operation because the patient is unvaccinated? Or how about denying a patient's informed decision to use repurposed drugs that have proven therapeutic value and extremely low risk? Or how about not standing up to obvious abuse of clinical practice and just standing by while people die who could potentially be saved by said therapeutics?

Or how about remaining silent while our entire scientific body of knowledge about epidemics and infectious disease is stood on its head in the name of big pharma profits, political agendas and personal careers, to say nothing of promoting a product which has not been properly tested, and has at this point claimed more lives than every other vaccine ever produced?

You can present this information, obtained by genuine scientists doing authentic research, only to have it dismissed by MDs who imagine themselves to be scientists, but who are simply parroting the official narrative (appeal to authority) and who arrogantly dismiss anything contradicting that as disinformation worthy of the pejorative "anti-vax."

Authentic scientists, people who follow the evidence no matter where it leads, spoke up and had their voices silenced and their careers threatened. It was clear from the very beginning that the official response was politically and economically motivated, and yet where were these MDs who imagine they understand evidence based science? Who among them had the courage to stand up and call bullshit on all of that? I could count them on one hand. The rest cowered in fear of losing their licence and continued following protocols that, if they were genuine scientists, they'd have known they were causing more harm than good, and yet.... crickets. I believe the legal term for that is 'depraved indifference.'

I have nothing but contempt for the medical profession at this point, and they have most definitely earned it. Oh and all those 'overworked' nurses twerking on TikTok? Fuck them too.

Expand full comment

We've removed your comment. We want this publication to support thoughtful discussion around writers’ work. It is not a place for irrelevant rants or off-topic digressions. That includes spam and repetitive self-promotion. You can learn more about how we approach decisions for this publication here: https://on.substack.com/p/community-guidelines

Expand full comment

You seem nice.

Expand full comment

Nice has nothing to do with it. I'm evidence based and I know a lie when I see it. We've been systematically lied to since day one, and as a result people have died that could have otherwise been saved. Worst lie of all is that the authorities were "following the science." Nothing could be further from the truth. Never mind the lunatic fringe on both sides of the debate, highly qualified dissenting voices were censored, banned on social media, threatened with loss of their careers and generally vilified by people with far less understanding of the subject, and demonstrable conflicts of interest.

To illustrate, imagine if the debate in physics over string theory vs. dark matter took on the tone and character of the vaccine debate? Instead of hearing from each side and allowing them to present their evidence, the physics 'authorities' threatened string theorists with loss of their research privileges, effectively ending that line of inquiry? Well, that's exactly what happened here.

Expand full comment

Surely your complete and absolute certainty that you're right is a sign you're not qualified to be a credible part of any debate on any of this? Because I don't hear any hint of a suggestion that you'd be willing to concede you might be wrong on anything?

Also, nice has *everything* to do with it. It's the difference between respectful counterargument and abusive behaviour.

Expand full comment

I'm serious here: I say a prayer every early morning that all people awaken to kindness, even the angriest. Be kind to each other i.e. nice. The world would be a better place for it.

Expand full comment
Comment removed
Expand full comment

I think I've made my point clearly enough, and the data is there to support it for anyone who cares enough to look. If you want to engage in ad hominem then knock yourself out. It's typical of ideologues, so nothing new.

Expand full comment

it is just so sad how she doesn't even look at any thing outside the mainstream narrative. sadly she probably convinced a lot of people to take the clot shot

Expand full comment

Such great advice here, not just for Substack, but for life: "Be consistent. Always show up. Let your voice and personality bleed through." Thanks for sharing, Katelyn!

Expand full comment

Interesting to see your (Katelyn's) journey, and how you went about building your substack. The part about the 1200 page word count I recognise. The way I write and report about different topics requires depth and nuance, so the posts can easily become very long. However, I have started to transform most of those posts, with the exception of a few where I felt that the entire context was necessary to be inside one post, into sort of an 'ongoing look at topic x'. This allows my readers more time to read it and come to grips with the information, and makes it easier to bring in new people through spreading the word / sharing it. All the best with your substack in the future!

Expand full comment

Conformity, calling herself “science” and aligning with the status quo allowed a public health professional to earn a side hustle during COVID. This is not worth celebrating. Nonetheless, I support free speech.

Expand full comment
Comment removed
Expand full comment

Aw gross I’m sorry to hear that about Australia

Expand full comment
Comment removed
Expand full comment

Yeah these new censorship laws disguised as promoting national content (Canada is doing something similar) are really dangerous and we don’t hear much about it. Hopefully Substack stays up, I’m sure NZ isn’t far behind.

Expand full comment

Oh you had best believe NZ will not be shown up in its banana republic credibility. They've been agitating for "hate speech" and internet censorship laws for awhile.

Expand full comment
Comment removed
Expand full comment

It was bad enough when the poms discontinued Jack Irish and Mystery Road!

Expand full comment

I'm really disgusted to see Substack pushing a big pharma propagandist. P-harm-a products kill and injure people every year, they have paid huge fines, and hire liars like this woman to spew disproven nonsense.

Expand full comment

Even more revealing is the number of commenters who only see this as a tutorial on how to scare up a large following. I guess J.R. 'Bob" Dobbs was right when he said "you'll pay to know what you really think."

Expand full comment

YLE was my first substack subscription I believe, and my first paid subscription. I liked what she was doing so much that I came in at the 'Founding Member" level. Yet I no longer subscribe! Why? Because for one, when she told us how very many subscribers she had I no longer felt she needed my financial support and I shifted my subscription dollars to other, much smaller, substacks that could use it. The other and stringer reason was philosophical. YLE went to a tiered model where only paying subscribers could comment. I STRONGLY disagree with that model. It was the primary reason I left. YLE didn't change, the excellence of her information and the meritorious mission was the same..it was just a have/have not wedge in the heart of her subscribers. If she removes it, I will assuredly be back.

Expand full comment

I imagine she does the paid subscribers only for comments thing for the same reasons that Heather Cox Richardson has everything for free but restricts comments to paid subscribers: it cuts down on the harassment they both endure. Just look at the comments here! That layer of safety is undoubtedly worth it.

Expand full comment

That’s 100% spot on! As a reader, I don’t want to waste my time reading from anti-science folks on a science blog, and -- given that a lot of them engage in annoying personal attacks (“big pharma shill!”), it’s even more understandable why Katelyn doesn’t want to deal with that crap!

Expand full comment

Eh, I have haters that come on my Substack once in a while and I'm in the opposite camp. I have one pro-vaccine guy visit me regularly to harass me. He amuses me. I even had one flame today from someone supposedly on "my" side. Granted, I don't have a huge audience but why the need for the thin skin? To me, it's this instant shut down of debate that is so unattractive on the left that I used to be a part of. The instant I disagree with someone on Notes, for example, some folks will instant ban rather than a dialogue. Well, this lack of communication and willingness to listen to the other side is setting us up for a civil war. Let's talk first instead of amping up the hatred to the point of physical fighting.

Expand full comment

I'm surprised you enjoy having someone visit you regularly to "harass" you, but hey, you do you!

The way I look at this is kinda like if I ran a blog for people interested in vegetarianism with recipes and positive life stories and such... and some enthusiastic, sometimes really rude meat eaters regularly came in to harass me and other commenters.

"You vegetarians are SICK AND UNAMERICAN! Don't you know that meat is what gives you LIFE?????"

"You are all in the pocket of BIG VEGETABLE!"

"Science shows that eating broccoli causes autism! Think for yourself! Don't be brainwashed!!!"

I wouldn't shed a single tear in blocking that sort of 'discourse' from my blog.

Now if I were running a blog whose primary aim was to try to persuade and convert people to vegetarianism... sure, then perhaps that's different.

But Katelyn's primary goal isn't to persuade and convert anti-vaxxers. She's speaking to the rest of us who are interested in the science and cultural issues around COVID, vaccinations, gun violence, etc. And I think I speak for most of us in noting that none of us want to hear shouting from 'the other side'. We're here to learn from and support each other.

Expand full comment

"But Katelyn's primary goal isn't to persuade and convert anti-vaxxers." Isn't that her goal? If not, shouldn't it be part of her goal if she feels strongly about it? We can't find any middle ground if we are continually locking ourselves into ideological silos.

I addressed this from the opposite end today, got some of my own audience mad at me, but what's the point in just preaching to the choir? OK, so Katelyn is making some good money at it now, but what has she actually changed or impacted with her silo-only approach?

Here's what I had to say on why I think the rabid anti-mask movement was actually counter productive to the health freedom movement as a whole. I even get into some "kooky" conspiracy reasons why these folks might want to mask up - https://wholistic.substack.com/p/masks-no-to-groupthink-on-either-side

Here's the other problem with the silo. Which I experienced today. If you step outside the self-created silo, you can put yourself into a position where you may not feel you can be honest with your readers in fear of pissing them off and losing money. So I just decided I'd rather be myself and to hell with readers who want to disown me for putting a mask on in the doctor's office. And this goes both ways. What if Katelyn suddenly looked at data showing that the side effects of covid vaccines aren't worth the risk? Without previously creating a space for open debate, she's now boxed herself in.

Expand full comment

Definitely see your point about potential fears of pissing off subscribers; that's always a risk one has to weigh as a writer, especially as a sometimes-paid one!

I hope that Katelyn feels (and is) comfortable to enough to always speak her mind and share viewpoints even when they might be uncomfortable for her readers and I hope the same for other writers.

Expand full comment

Ding ding ding

Expand full comment

Sorry I'm so dense but I'm not sure what the bell there was referencing!

Signed,

"Unsubscribed but still a fan."

Expand full comment

Yes, that's precisely went that route. She was getting death threats from the lunatic fringe. But she had and has defensive tools. She can ban posters. She can delete offensive comments. She can refuse to engage with trolls. She can set up ground rules where everyone is noticed that polite, non-abusive discourse is the only allowed. Perhaps Substack itself can set up filters that screen out imprecations and threats. It seems a shame that the goons can close down discourse whenever they like and force the writers to throw out the baby with the bathwater. It amounts to a filibuster via abusiveness.

Expand full comment

I tend to agree more with Adam’s comment just now. If the trolls can be blocked simply and quickly with a comments paywall, excellent. If you want to comment, pay up. Seems pretty straightforward. We aren’t owed thr ability to post comments, period. She has no paywall for reading her posts, and that is to me a quite generous choice, considering.

Expand full comment

You're right about simplicity and

it's true we're not owed a comment. But I bet there are trolls very willing to pay if that gives them the opportunity to vent the ugliness inside. And it's doubtful that I as a writer would allow myself to be so abused for the paltry price of a subscription. That's selling my peace of mind at too cheap a price. Better for me rather than that, to either try to be so bland in my writing as to offend no one, or to shut down the comments feature entirely and take my substack private (I did that once). The trolls prevail in either case. The iron law of social media seems to be this sad descent.

Expand full comment

Well one of the commentators on her most recent post signs all his comments with “Trumpers are dumb AF.” I hope that would fall under your proposed rules. Personally I’m a little tired of the double standards, including the one way indignation about bullying that she wrote about.

Expand full comment

I think all you need to do is see all the comments here to see why a comments paywall is necessary and is the simplest solution up front.

Repeatedly it’s shown that harassment has been cut down a whole lot, just by having the comments paywall. I’ve seen Heather Cox Richardson, Michael Moore, and now Katelyn Jetelina talk about this and how effective it is.

Expand full comment

Amen to this. It's really an excuse to shut down opposing viewpoints. Trolls are easily banned.

Expand full comment

Case in point about what happens when you broadcast info that others don't want to hear:

https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/23/weather/iowa-meteorologist-resigns-threats-weather-climate/index.html

Crazy times.

Expand full comment

This is an excellent piece. Thank you for sharing these valuable insights, as well as the reminder to be consistent always show up!!

Expand full comment

Substack comment sections are a surprisingly toxic place lol. Except for maybe the writer's room it's just people going after whoever they featured as some weird personal branding strategy.

Expand full comment

Yep, sometimes the case. But I bet it's especially true when it's women and they're scientists.

Expand full comment

I've become so jaded on these people that I've decided it has nothing to do with personal politics and is just a guerilla marketing strategy.

Expand full comment
RemovedJun 28, 2023·edited Jun 28, 2023
Comment removed
Expand full comment

Ah yes:

https://www.factcheck.org/2023/01/scicheck-covid-19-vaccines-tested-in-clinical-trials-despite-strongbogus-social-media-claims-strong/

"The video features Alexandra, or Sasha, Latypova, who is described as “a former executive of a pharmaceutical contract research organization.” She has previously made media appearances with organizations opposed to vaccines, such as Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s Children’s Health Defense, and has written for the pseudoscientific website TrialSiteNews."

Expand full comment
Comment removed
Expand full comment

Please listen to the doctors. And presumably all the people around you who are telling you to drop this nonsense. Please.

Expand full comment

You're referencing factcheck.org - 😂😂😂

The censorship cabal: hold my 🍺.....

Expand full comment
Comment removed
Expand full comment

"Substack comment sections are a surprisingly toxic place lol"

Spend some time on Zero Hedge then get back to us:)

Expand full comment

Helpful insights. I like the practical tips that align for growth no matter what you’re writing. The word count is interesting; it seems reasonable to keep those limits especially with lowered retention. Publishing twice a week would be difficult but I can see the traction it would provide.

Expand full comment

I see it like tending a garden.

Expand full comment

Good analogy. Thanks for the reply!

Expand full comment

Reading these comments, several thoughts come to mind. "It takes a village". Not a city, not a megalopolis, not a conurban region. Just a village. It's not necessary or even desirable to chase after large numbers of subscribers. Just have better discourse and relations with the subscribers you have. I have one of the smallest newsletters out there, but I treasure each and every one of my readers. If my numbers got huge, I wouldn't have the hours in the day to give them what little I have to offer. So making of Substack a get-rich quick opportunity based on cultivating large numbers of readers offends what's left of my sixties idealism. I prefer a small group of friends chatting in a sunlit room, than an auditorium full of people being addressed by a small figure with a microphone on the stage. Quality not quantity whenever possible.

Expand full comment

Thanks for these--all very inspiring!

Expand full comment

This is great! I started following Katelyn on IG during the pandemic, and I am glad to learn she found a home on Substack. Thank you for sharing this insight!

Expand full comment

Meh interview. This woman got lucky and cashed in. Good for her. She could never replicate her success again though. Another swing and a miss from Substack.

Expand full comment

Maybe. Maybe not. We’ll see how much luck it was in the months and years to come

Expand full comment

It’s not maybe. You lucked out. Without the pandemic, you wouldn’t have had any of this.

Expand full comment
Comment removed
Expand full comment

Oh, I'm aware. I'm just being "kind."

Expand full comment
Comment removed
Expand full comment

We didn't have to clap. And I never did. The people who injected themselves and took whatever was being advertised share the blame too. I never took anything. We make our own decisions. Granted, I was in the US which permitted this. I agree these people should be held accountable but that's not going to happen.

Expand full comment