Dear Mr. Diamandis,

I'm glad to have your reply to this article, although what it does not address is notable, and its implication of my motives for writing it is as unfortunate as it is false. Below I reply to each of your assertions in detail:

1. You assert that I'm "trying to create" a "story" that you imply is misleading. That is false—demonstrably so. I reported only the information found in your email correspondences with Epstein, and I pointed out what they, in fact, do not say. My article pointed out that your emails with Epstein covered the years from 2009 to 2014, and that only a fraction of the 268 instances your name appears in the Epstein files were direct, person-to-person correspondence between you and him. My article reports not a fabricated story but rather facts, including those you fail in your above response to address, as I point out below.

2. You assert that you were "introduced" to Epstein "as a philanthropist" in 2013 by your book agent, and that had you "known more about" Epstein, you would not have taken that meeting. In fact, you emailed Epstein 4 years earlier asking for a “catch up.” My article includes the image of an email you sent to Epstein on April 28, 2009, in which you wrote: "Hi Jeffrey- It's been a while since we chatted. I'd love to connect & catch up...." That email shows you and Epstein had “chatted” previous to April 2009. Thus, your assertion above that you "simply went into the meeting" with Epstein in 2013 at your book agent's suggestion fails to address what the documents show, ie, your interest in meeting with Epstein in 2009. Nor does your explanation above address the clear context of your 2009 email that you and Epstein were already on a first name basis, had been in contact and were due for a "catch up."

3. You assert that you "didn't do any background research" on Epstein prior to a single meeting you claim you had with Epstein about XPRIZE, facilitated by your book agent. You further say you "simply went into the meeting at (your agent's) suggestion." In fact, the emails I published show you had a friendly connection to Epstein from at least 2009, when you emailed him to "connect & catch up." Notably, you sent that 2009 email request to Epstein while he was serving jail time for procuring a minor for prostitution. I’ll also point out that the construction of your sentence asserting, "I had a single fundraising meeting with Epstein about XPRIZE," can be read to mean that you had only one XPRIZE-fundraising-related meeting with Epstein, leaving open the possibility that you had other, non-XPRIZE, non-fundraising meetings with Epstein, in person or otherwise.

You also assert that you failed to do any research on Epstein, prior to meeting him 4 years later. You do not explain how you, or anyone on your staff, remained completely unaware of Epstein's 2008 felony conviction, registration as a sex offender, and the 18-month prison sentence he was still serving when your reached out to him in 2009 with the notation that "it's been a while since we chatted."

4. You assert of Epstein that "had I known about him, I would have never pursued a meeting." As I point out above, your meeting with Epstein occurred almost 4 years after he had been convicted of procuring a child for prostitution, was a registered sex offender, and had served 13 months of an 18-month sentence in Florida. Epstein's reputation and criminal history were widely documented in media. To believe that neither you—given your reputation as one of the most astute, innovative and sophisticated entrepreneurs in the world—nor your staff had any notion of Epstein's past is asking my readers to put aside their common sense. If you didn't know of Epstein's past in 2009, your note makes no mention of whether you believe you had an obligation to know.

5. Finally, you say that "KYC is important." KYC refers to "know your customer," and I appreciate you pointing out the importance of that idea. My customer is my audience, and my obligation is to report to my audience the facts, fairly and accurately, without worrying whom it might displease or make uncomfortable. I believe I've done that in this article. If my article got any facts wrong, I urge you to say so and I'll acknowledge any errors and correct them.

If you'd like to continue this discussion, I welcome your response.

Sincerely,

Paul von Zielbauer

AGING with STRENGTH