Just the Facts

About Just the Facts

An award-winning investigative journalist provides an intimate insider account of how he and colleagues break major stories. He reveals methods used to uncover secret documents and ways to protect sources from retribution and discovery. Also, voiceovers of his wide-ranging "Just the Facts" Substack posts, investigative articles on everything from the gender wars to censorship to Big Pharma and institutional corruption. www.justthefacts.media (https://www.justthefacts.media?utm_medium=podcast)

Publisher

Gerald Posner

Category

arts · news

Language

en

Explicit

No

First episode

30 Dec 2022

Latest episode

1 Jul 2026

Latest episodes

46 episodes in the feed.

1. 

   1 Jul 2026

   Not Progressive Enough: The Scott Wiener Morality Tale

   There is a viral video making its way across social media this week that every Democrat who cares about the future of the party should be required to watch. It runs about three minutes. It is not comfortable viewing. In it, Scott Wiener — California state senator, frontrunner for Nancy Pelosi’s congressional seat, gay Jewish progressive with one of the most consequential LGBTQ legislative records in American history — sits with his back against a wall at an Irish sports bar in San Francisco’s Mission District, watching a World Cup match. An activist named Jesus Coba has cornered him. For three minutes, Coba screams, demands, and harangues. He repeatedly calls Wiener a Zionist. He tells him to get out of his neighborhood. He demands, again and again, that Wiener look into the camera and say “Free Palestine.” Wiener mostly says nothing. His face is the face of a man who has just understood something he didn’t fully understand before. The ultra-progressive movement he helped build has come for him. Three days later, Wiener showed up at San Francisco’s Trans March — an event he had attended for 22 consecutive years, an event that exists in part because of laws he wrote. A crowd confronted him, shouted obscenities, and made it, in his own words, “impossible for me to safely remain in the park.” He left. A video of the expulsion racked up roughly six million views by the following afternoon. The activist who filmed it captured the moment’s terrible irony in a single sentence, shouted at Wiener’s back as he retreated through Dolores Park: “It sucks because you’ve been wonderful… for trans people, and you’ve been terrible… on Gaza.” There it is. That sentence is not just about Scott Wiener. It is the clearest possible statement of what has happened to a significant faction of the American left. Just the Facts is reader-supported. Become a free or paid subscriber. The Most Progressive Jew in California To understand why these two videos are so remarkable, you need to understand who Scott Wiener actually is. He is not a centrist Democrat who got tagged with a progressive label. He is the real thing — a Harvard-educated attorney and 55-year-old gay man who has spent a decade in the California State Senate methodically dismantling the legal architecture around LGBTQ rights, one bill at a time. Start with SB 107, his 2022 law that made California the first state in the nation to establish itself as a formal refuge for transgender youth and their families. When Texas, Alabama, and Idaho began criminalizing “gender-affirming care” for minors, Wiener’s law made California a legal sanctuary for those families fleeing extradition orders, subpoenas, and custody battles. Last year he strengthened it further with SB 497, which added warrant requirements for healthcare data and expanded shield protections for trans patients, their families, and their doctors. Before that there was SB 239, which removed California’s HIV-specific felony statute. Before that, it was a felony to intentionally expose someone to HIV infection. Wiener’s bill reduced those offenses to misdemeanors and allowed prior convictions to be vacated.SB 145 ended mandatory registration as a sex offender for cases of same sex “consensual” sex in which the victim was between 14-and 17 years of age and the adult was no more than 10 years the minor’s age. Wiener also wrote the nation’s first LGBTQ Seniors Bill of Rights, protecting residents of long-term care facilities from discrimination based on sexual orientation or HIV status. He made PrEP available from a pharmacist without a prescription — also a first in the nation. He secured $15 million in state funds to cover gender-affirming healthcare that the Trump administration was cutting from Medicaid. This is not simply a legislative record but rather an ultra-progressive architecture. No California politician has built more of the legal infrastructure protecting trans people. He is also running for Congress in a heavily watched race — the frontrunner, having taken roughly 42 percent of the primary vote for the seat Nancy Pelosi held for nearly four decades. His November general election opponent is SF Supervisor Connie Chan, backed by Pelosi herself. And in the last week, he has been cornered in a bar and expelled from a parade he helped make possible. The Capitulation That Was Never Enough What makes the Wiener story a genuine morality tale — and not just a local San Francisco drama — is the sequence of what he gave up before any of this happened. At a candidate forum on January 7, Wiener sat alongside two progressive opponents — Supervisor Connie Chan and former congressional staffer Saikat Chakrabarti — and was asked to hold up a sign: Does Israel commit genocide in Gaza? Chan held up “yes.” Chakrabarti held up “yes.” Wiener declined to answer. It was a moment of genuine moral seriousness: a Jewish politician who knew what the word genocide meant to his community, refusing to deploy it as a campaign prop. The backlash from the activist left was swift and furious. Four days later, Wiener released a 90-second video and reversed himself. “I’ve stopped short of calling it genocide,” he said, “but I can’t anymore. To me the Israeli government has tried to destroy Gaza and to push Palestinians out. And that qualifies as genocide.” He had read the polls and felt the pressure. Two weeks after that, he resigned as co-chair of the California Legislative Jewish Caucus — a position he had held since 2023. Wiener never took AIPAC money. He has called for a halt to U.S. arms sales to Israel. He now calls out Israel’s military response to the October 7 terror attack as “indefensible.” That was still not enough to satisfy the Gaza wing of the party. The man who confronted Wiener at the Napper Tandy bar on June 24 was not some random stranger. Jesus Coba had targeted Wiener before — in 2024, he filmed himself confronting the senator on a flight from San Francisco to Phoenix, posting an image with a Hamas targeting symbol superimposed over Wiener’s head, then following him through the airport calling him a “weak-ass Zionist” and telling him his “whole bloodline’s cowards.” This is a man who makes a practice of hunting elected officials. And Wiener — who had already publicly declared Israel guilty of genocide and resigned his Jewish institutional leadership as a consequence — was still his target. That is not a policy dispute. It has become a loyalty ritual. Gaza Has Replaced Everything Let me be direct about what these two incidents, taken together, reveal. There is a faction of the Democratic Party — centered in the DSA, energized by the anti-Zionist left, and now demonstrably capable of winning elections, as the recent New York City primaries showed — for which Gaza has become the single organizing principle of political identity. Not climate. Not abortion rights. Not trans rights. Not Black Lives Matter. Not economic inequality. Gaza. Specifically: Gaza framed exclusively as genocide, with no acknowledgment of October 7, no acknowledgment of Hamas, no complexity, no history. These activists have erected genocide as a non-negotiable litmus test — a single phrase that every Democrat must publicly affirm or be treated as an enemy. And critically: even affirmation doesn’t buy you immunity, as Wiener discovered. What they want is not agreement. What they want is the ongoing spectacle of submission. The message of the Trans March video — “you’ve been wonderful for trans people, and terrible on Gaza” — could not be more explicit. A decade of legislative work protecting trans lives counts for nothing. The only currency is Gaza. Trans people, one presumes, should be grateful for whatever they’ve received, but that gratitude does not entitle their champion to attend their march. The Infection in the Party The Scott Wiener story is a flashing yellow warning light, and Democratic Party leaders who ignore it do so at their peril. The DSA-aligned left is not a fringe curiosity. It is winning elections — in New York, in progressive enclaves across the country — and it is doing so by organizing around a cause that has, by design, no resolution. A demand for a ceasefire can be satisfied. A demand that every Democratic politician publicly endorse a genocide finding, on pain of expulsion from progressive spaces, is not a policy position — it is an ideological filter that will keep running forever, eliminating candidate after candidate who won’t pass it. What that means in practice is the systematic destruction of the Democratic coalition’s most reliable progressive actors. Scott Wiener didn’t wander in from the center. But he is being expelled now from the movements he helped build and empower. The movement he helped arm with moral certainty had turned that certainty on him. If the Democratic Party cannot protect politicians like Scott Wiener from this kind of targeted harassment — if it cannot articulate clearly that chasing a man out of a bar and a trans march because he won’t say the right words on Gaza is not progressive politics but its opposite — then it is surrendering its coalition to a litmus test that will drive a wrecking ball through the Democratic coalition. Scott Wiener’s face in that bar video — blank, still, as though he is trapped and does not know what to do — is the face of a man who realizes he has been caught in a contagion sweeping the party’s far left. It is not ultimately a story about Scott Wiener. It is a story about where a piece of the Democratic Party is going — and how it threatens to take down the party along the way. Just the Facts is reader-supported. Become a free or paid subscriber. Get full access to Just the Facts with Gerald Posner at www.justthefacts.media/subscribe (https://www.justthefacts.media/subscribe?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_4)

2. 

   12 Jun 2026

   In California, Caution Is About to Become Malpractice

   This is another in my occasional series on the pediatric trans industry. Imagine a 14-year-old walks into a therapist’s office and announces she has bipolar disorder. She read about it online, she says. The symptoms match. She wants an antipsychotic prescription medication. No competent therapist anywhere would write the prescription. The therapist would do what therapists are trained to do, explore family history, the circle of friends, the social media diet, the possibility that what the 14-year-old has concluded is bipolar disorder might be anxiety, depression, trauma, or simply the ordinary adolescent turbulence. That careful, skeptical, exploratory process is not an obstacle to good care. It is the care. Now imagine the same 14-year-old announces instead that she is a boy. In that case — and only in that case — the rules of therapy are inverted in the United States. The patient’s self-diagnosis is the diagnosis. The therapist’s job is to affirm it. And if a bill now moving through the California legislature becomes law, a therapist who asks too many questions could be sued for it — and minors can file claims until they turn 40. Senate Bill 934: Litigation as Ideology Enforcement This week, Senate Bill 934 (https://legiscan.com/CA/text/SB934/id/3445424) cleared the California Assembly Judiciary Committee on a 7–3 party-line vote. The bill is authored by state Sen. Scott Wiener, a San Francisco Democrat now running for Nancy Pelosi’s congressional seat. The ultra-progressive lawmaker is responsible for several controversial bills, including measures restricting parental involvement in their children’s ‘gender affirming care’ and a separate effort to narrow sex-offender registration requirements. Wiener’s latest bill allows former patients to bring malpractice suits against licensed therapists for so-called “conversion therapy.” It has a statute of limitations unlike almost anything else in civil law. Patients who were minors at the time of treatment can sue until they turn 40. Adults get 10 years from their last session, or five years from “discovering harm.” In other words, the moment they decide the therapy harmed them. Plaintiffs can seek damages for medical expenses, mental health treatment, lost wages, pain and suffering, emotional distress, and loss of enjoyment of life. And, of course, attorney’s fees and, in cases of alleged fraud, punitive damages. Wiener has been candid about why he authored the bill. In April, the Supreme Court ruled 8–1 in Chiles v. Salazar that state bans on talk therapy touching sexual orientation and gender identity must survive strict scrutiny. That is the Constitution’s most demanding test. Justice Gorsuch wrote the majority opinion, and the case was remanded to lower courts. Chiles v. Salazar put California’s own 2012 ban, the nation’s first, on shaky legal ground. Wiener acknowledged as much to California Senate committee: there have “already been rumblings” of a legal challenge to the California law, “so here we are.” What to do if the courts will not allow the state to ban a category of speech between therapists and patients? Wiener noted publicly that Gorsuch’s opinion did not cover malpractice suits and therefore he designed a statute-by-litigation workaround by which the state will make practicing standard talk therapy when it comes to gender, financially ruinous. What the First Amendment forbids by statute, SB 934 accomplishes by litigation exposure. The Definitional Sleight of Hand The bill’s defenders and sponsors include prominent LGBT advocacy groups, Equality California, Lambda Legal, the National Center for LGBTQ Rights, and the Trevor Project. They invoke the genuinely discredited practices that the phrase “conversion therapy” conjures: the aversion treatments, the oppressive religious boot camps, the electroshock horrors of decades past. Wiener slams it all as “psychological torture.” Historically, that discredited legacy was abusive and is rightly condemned. If SB 934 targeted only that, it would be unremarkable. Those practices are denounced by every major medical association, already banned for minors in California, and already grounds for professional discipline. Wiener has used that concept as a cudgel, saying the bill (https://localnewsmatters.org/2026/03/24/wiener-conversion-therapy-bill-lawsuits/) gives victims “the right to hold charlatans accountable for this debunked torture.” But that is not how the bill is written. Its definition of prohibited “change efforts” sweeps in any attempt by a licensed mental health provider to direct a patient toward “a particular sexual orientation or a particular gender identity.” That language is the critical hinge of the bill. The chilling effect isn’t a side effect but rather its mechanism. A therapist who spends six months helping a gender-distressed 13-year-old examine whether her confusion might be rooted in autism, internalized homophobia, or social contagion — and who watches that distress resolve without a single medical intervention — has, in the eyes of a plaintiff’s lawyer, “directed” the patient “toward” her birth-sex identity. That is not conversion therapy.That is therapy. For every other condition in the diagnostic manual, it is called the standard of care. Just the Facts is reader-supported. Become a free or paid subscriber. The Chilling Effect Is the Point Clinical psychologist Joseph Burgo said it plainly at last Tuesday’s committee hearing: “In supervising therapists today, I constantly hear their anxiety over their legal exposures or risks to their license if they do just that — practice traditional exploratory psychotherapy. These are not conversion therapists. These are honest clinicians who want to practice traditional psychotherapy with gender-distressed young people, but they’re afraid to do so.” SB 934 bakes that fear into statute. Few therapists in private practice can absorb the cost of defending a malpractice suit, even a winning defense — and no malpractice insurer will look kindly on a clinician whose patient population carries a two-decade liability tail. The rational response for a therapist is to choose not to explore or question, not to have “watchful waiting,” what used to be considered the gold standard for treating minors with questions about their gender.The safest path will be to affirm the child’s self-diagnosis, write a referral letter, and move the child along to the endocrinologist. The medical pipeline of puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgery becomes not just the path of least resistance, but the path of least litigation. Among those who testified against the bill was Jonni Skinner, a 23-year-old detransitioner. Skinner grew up in a devoutly religious family in small-town Michigan. He described being a feminine boy who constantly was bullied and later diagnosed with high-functioning autism. Skinner told lawmakers he encountered trans influencers online as a teen: “They said, ‘Change your body and your life gets better. Don’t, and it gets worse.’” Skinner told the committee that doctors told his mother that he would kill himself if he was not allowed to transition. The therapy he needed, the kind that might have asked and challenged whether an autistic, gender-nonconforming, bullied kid was actually a girl, is precisely the therapy SB 934 makes legally radioactive. A child like Skinner has no comparable remedy. The bill creates a 22-year window to sue any therapist who counsels caution. Meanwhile, it is not intended to create an equivalent window to sue the clinic that prescribed puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, or irreversible surgical interventions to a confused minor. Under SB 934, it is caution that carries potential liability. The scalpel may not. How We Got Here None of this happened overnight. Two years ago, I traced the history in “Who Put the Kids in Charge? (https://www.justthefacts.media/p/who-put-the-kids-in-charge)” — how gender dysphoria entered the diagnostic manual only in 2013, the first time the disorder was applied to minors; how a Dutch protocol built on a handful of patients, and underwritten in part by a pharmaceutical company holding a puberty-blocker patent, became the global template; and how American gender clinics adopted the most permissive interpretation of it, multiplying from a single Boston clinic to dozens of dedicated pediatric gender centers over a decade. The therapist’s predicament was then compounded by the profession’s own gatekeepers. In 2024, the American Psychiatric Association published Gender-Affirming Psychiatric Care, the first textbook of its kind — and, as I wrote in the New York Post (https://nypost.com/2024/04/17/opinion/non-binary-activist-teddy-goetz-ordering-psychiatrists-to-push-gender-affirming-surgery-over-therapy/), it is less a clinical reference than a handbook for affirmation-only practice. Its 26 chapters, each featuring at least one author who identifies as transgender, non-binary, or “gender-expansive,” instruct the next generation of psychiatrists that their role is to affirm, facilitate, and refer — not to explore. A young clinician trained on that textbook, practicing under SB 934, will not need to worry about the law’s liability because that clinician will only wave patients as fast as possible from the therapy couch into the pediatric gender pipeline. The Rest of the World Is Walking This Back What makes California’s timing so remarkable is that it comes as the countries that pioneered pediatric gender medicine are retreating from it. England’s National Health Service, following the landmark Cass Review’s conclusion that the evidence base for youth gender medicine is “remarkably weak,” ended the routine prescription of puberty blockers for minors and closed its Tavistock clinic for pediatric patients. Sweden and Finland — early adopters of the Dutch protocol — have restricted hormonal interventions for adolescents and restored psychotherapy as the first-line response to gender distress. In other words, the careful, exploratory approach that SB 934 would expose to two decades of litigation risk is the approach now recommended by the health authorities of the very nations that invented this field. California is not protecting children from a discredited fringe practice. It is threatening therapists for practicing what is becoming, everywhere but here, the international clinical consensus. What Is Next I have no quarrel with protecting genuine victims. Anyone subjected to the coercive, shame-based practices that deserve the name conversion therapy should have their day in court, and the bill’s authors could have written a statute narrowly targeting exactly that. They chose not to. The breadth of the definition is not sloppy drafting; it is the mechanism by design. A legislature that wanted to protect gender-distressed children would want more therapy for them, not less — more time, more questions, more of the in-depth analysis and skepticism that we demand from clinicians treating every other condition a child might claim to have. SB 934 delivers the opposite: a legal regime in which the only safe thing a California therapist can say to a confused 13-year-old is yes. The bill now moves toward a floor vote in a legislature where its passage is assured and a governor’s signature is likely. What Sen. Wiener may not expect is a future wave of lawsuits from a constituency he seems not to be watching: detransitioners now reaching adulthood. Under the bill’s own language, after all, a clinic that fast-tracked a child toward a particular “gender identity” — complete with new pronouns, blockers, and a medical roadmap — has arguably committed the very offense the statute creates. I expect some creative plaintiffs’ lawyers to notice. And they might use the statute to seek damages from the clinicians and institutions that moved children at warp speed into a medical system that left them with lifelong consequences. California will then discover it has built a weapon that points both ways. Just the Facts is reader-supported. Become a free or paid subscriber. Get full access to Just the Facts with Gerald Posner at www.justthefacts.media/subscribe (https://www.justthefacts.media/subscribe?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_4)

3. 

   9 May 2026

   When Addiction Entered the House That OxyContin Built

   There are moments in a long-running public scandal when history seems to write the coda itself. Last week, while much of the national press barely noticed, Joss Sackler, wife of former Purdue Pharma board member David Sackler, appeared in federal court in Miami and pleaded guilty (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-05-07/sackler-family-member-admits-felony-tied-to-her-opioid-addiction) to obstructing a federal grand jury investigation. She admitted deleting WhatsApp messages that would have shown she was the intended recipient of prescription painkillers seized by U.S. Customs and Border Protection at Miami International Airport in June 2024. Sackler was addicted at the time to the opioids that had helped ignite the deadliest prescription drug crisis in American history while simultaneously creating a multi-billion-dollar empire for the family into which she had married. She is scheduled for sentencing in July and faces a statutory maximum of 20 years, though the guidelines are expected to call for a far lighter sentence. That would be a sad story in almost any family. In this family, it is something more. Her husband, David Sackler, is the son of Richard Sackler, the former Purdue president and chief executive, and he served on Purdue’s board before the company entered bankruptcy. I have written extensively about the Sacklers, Purdue, and OxyContin, including in my book Pharma: Greed, Lies, and the Poisoning of America, and in follow-up reporting and commentary (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/22/opinion/sacklers-opioid-epidemic.html) in the New York Times and here on Just the Facts. I argued then, and I believe now, that the people who directed Purdue deserved at the very least a criminal investigation commensurate with the scale of the lethal catastrophe they had sparked. Instead, Purdue Pharma, the corporate entity, pleaded guilty in 2020 to federal conspiracy and fraud charges related to its business practices. It had pled guilty in 2007 to a felony charge of misbranding OxyContin with the intent to defraud or mislead. But no member of the Sackler family has ever been criminally charged for Purdue’s conduct. That remains one of the great failures of accountability in modern American public health. The opioid epidemic has killed on a scale that is often forgotten. The Associated Press, using federal data, reported that more than 900,000 deaths in the United States have been connected to opioid overdose since 1999. The early wave was driven by prescription opioids, led by OxyContin, and followed by heroin and then fentanyl. Those numbers are not abstractions. They are parents who never came home. Children found dead in bedrooms. Veterans. Nurses. Construction workers. Teenagers. Grandmothers. People who were prescribed pills after surgery. People who were told their pain could be safely controlled. Patients who trusted doctors, who believed drug labels, who had faith in a system that had already been compromised. I have met and talked to many of the families of the victims. For every person who died from an opioid overdose, there are relatives and friends whose lives have forever been changed. Just the Facts is reader-supported. Become a subscriber. For years, many of those families fought the Sacklers in court, in bankruptcy proceedings, in the press, and in public memory. They demanded something more than money. They wanted admissions and accountability. Many wanted the Sackler name to stop floating above the wreckage, insulated by trusts, lawyers, philanthropy, and the antiseptic language of civil settlements. Instead, what they finally received was a flawed multibillion-dollar bankruptcy deal. On May 1, 2026, a $7.4 billion national Purdue and Sackler settlement became legally effective. It is the messy and unsatisfying conclusion to a decade of litigation over Purdue’s and the Sacklers’ role in fueling the opioid crisis. The Sackler family owners are required to contribute at least $6.5 billion, Purdue is being replaced by Knoa Pharma, the Sacklers are barred from selling opioids in the United States, and more than 30 million documents related to Purdue’s opioid business are to be made public. That is a tiny measure of accountability. But it is not the accountability for which the families fought. It does not bring back the dead nor restore hollowed-out communities. It does not erase the years Purdue spent turning pain into profit. It does not answer the question that has haunted this story from the beginning: how can a company plead guilty to crimes of such consequence while the people who controlled and profited from it avoid criminal charges? That is what makes the Joss Sackler case so grimly arresting. It is not justice in any legal sense for the victims of OxyContin nor a substitute for the prosecutions that never came. It is not a reason to mock a person who says she suffered from addiction. Addiction is not a punchline or a moral failure. But the symbolism is inescapable. The epidemic that Purdue helped unleash did not stop at the gates of privilege. It did not care about the security guards, the private schools, the family offices, the wealth managers, the art collections, the high-end philanthropy, or the careful legal architecture built to preserve Sackler family fortunes. It did not care whether someone was sleeping under a highway overpass or living inside one of America’s most notorious fortunes. It is a vivid reminder that addiction spares no one. One of the reasons the Sacklers became a symbol of the opioid crisis was because they insisted, for so long, that the harms of OxyContin were someone else’s problem. Bad doctors. Needy patients. Criminal diversion. Personal weakness. Misuse and abuse. Anything but the predictable outcome of a business model that pushed a powerful opioid with catastrophic consequences. Now, in a bitter historical turn, the opioid crisis has reached inside the family perimeter. That does not make Joss Sackler responsible for Purdue’s decisions. Her lawyer is right that her case is legally separate from Purdue Pharma and other members of the Sackler family. That distinction matters. She pleaded guilty to her own conduct, not to Purdue’s. But journalism is not only about legal distinctions. It is also about meaning. And the meaning here is unavoidable. The family whose fortune was inseparable from OxyContin now has a member of its inner circle standing in federal court, acknowledging conduct tied to her own opioid addiction. That fact landed with force among the online communities of relatives and friends who lost loved ones to OxyContin and spent years demanding justice. For them, while it was not the justice they had sought, it seemed a kind of karmic reckoning. I understand why. For decades, America treated addiction as something that happened to other people. Purdue initially concentrated much of it Oxycontin marketing in the rural and blue-collar towns through Appalachia. Those were people who could be dismissed from a distance. And Purdue advanced the assumption that respectable medical treatment could not possibly create the kind of addiction associated with street drugs. That a pill prescribed by a doctor, promoted by a major pharmaceutical company, and wrapped in the language of pain relief must be safe enough. That lie helped build a fortune and the wreckage is still with us. The people who wanted criminal accountability for Purdue’s leaders did not get it. But the criminal justice system has now reached a woman who married into that same family, and it is a lesson that the forces unleashed by the family greed did not remain neatly contained. It exposes the fiction that wealth can build a wall high enough to keep consequence out. I hope Joss Sackler has recovered. I mean that sincerely. Addiction is a disease, and recovery should be available to everyone, whether they live in a mansion or a shelter. But I also hope this story is not allowed to disappear as a strange footnote. It belongs in the larger record of the Sackler and Purdue saga because it reveals something essential about addiction and power. The opioid crisis was never only about drugs. It was about who gets believed. Millions of ordinary Americans learned that lesson the hardest way possible. Now, in the family that set the fire, the story has come home. Just the Facts is a reader-supported publication. Become a subscriber. Get full access to Just the Facts with Gerald Posner at www.justthefacts.media/subscribe (https://www.justthefacts.media/subscribe?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_4)

Who has been a guest on Just the Facts

Names identified in recent episode analyses. Showing up to five guests.

• Gerald Posner
• Dr Arthur Caplan
• Dr Bruce Levine

Reach and audience

Public platform figures. Ratings count people who left a rating, not total listeners.

Apple Podcasts (US)

5.0 / 5

9 ratings

Podcast Authority Score: 34 / 100

A composite of feed quality, social presence, YouTube performance and engagement. Read the methodology.

Quality

40

Social presence

0

YouTube

0

Engagement

68

Contact Just the Facts

Guest appearances

Does not typically book guests

Based on episode analysis; this does not confirm that the show is currently accepting guests.