Let me begin this comment with several sincere compliments and one pretty severe "correction"…
First the compliments: I found your article articulate, informative, and intriguing. More importantly, it helped me understand a little more about the mindsets and worldviews of a demographic I need to understand more deeply. Which is of course one of the main reasons I subscribe to your work, and why I never delete your articles without reading them. I even keep a few in a file with your name on it for reference.
This article was the first I had heard of René Girard's scapegoat mechanism. A mechanism which I have seen in action and which now I have a name for and a resource for further study.
That said… I must take exception to the phrase "…a man whose whackadoodle theories about medicine…" Not because you used the wrong word. The word itself perfectly describes him. My complaint is with your spelling of the word, because whackadoodle with an H means something different than wackadoodle without the H…
You see, Wackadoodle (without the H) comes from the British slang "wack," meaning worthless, stupid ideas, work, or talk. Rubbish. So when you used it to describe RFK Jr.'s medical theories, you were technically accurate. His theories are indeed wackadoodle without an H. (see: https://www.dictionary.com/e/slang/wackadoodle/)
On the other hand, Whackadoodle (with an H) comes from the word whacky, meaning eccentric, quirky, wonderfully odd. This is the word I use when one of my kindergarteners or tutoring students does something wild, crazy, outrageous, and absolutely delightful. "You," I tell them, "are so Whackadoodle." It is a compliment of the highest order.
I know that this must seem a trivial thing to you and your readers. However, as the author of several books which use the word Whackadoodle (with an H):
— Teaching Logic in a Whackadoodle World — in which a pandemic-bound student learns to navigate the logical fallacies she finds all around her, alongside her tutor.
— Finding Sense in a Whackadoodle World — in which the same student and her tutor have a days-long conversation trying to make sense of civics, politics, and the educational system around them.
— Navigating Life Through a Whackadoodle World — in which the student and tutor examine the philosophy the tutor lives by, together.
As well as a Substack newsletter entitled "Navigating a Whackadoodle World," I am sure you understand why this matter would not seem trivial to me.
I am pleased you enjoyed it. Whackadoodle is such a fun word to say... seems sad to. let the "wacked" side claim it entirely because of the omission of an H...
I am wondering if you are an attorney? Because your legal analysis isn't very good. First, no attorney with any competence would cite google & AI answers to legal questions. Google is a search engine & AI is well known for getting attorneys & judges in trouble b/c it hallucinates. So no attorney with any sense would cite either as legal authority. In addition, any competent attorney would also do what we older attorneys used to call "shephardizing." That is the process of checking the subsequent history of a case for differences of opinions, disagreement with reasoning or discussions of different fact situations. I am not going to do that for you.
Nor would s/he cite a legal case w/o the correct legal citation, which I note you have done. W/o the citation, consulting the subsequent history becomes extremely difficult.
Regardless, assuming your legal citation is correct, your application is not. First, Dr. Fauci was testifying before Congress, not at a criminal trial. That would be a civil law situation, to which a pardon would not apply. One can be civilly liable even if not criminally convicted. In addition, it is not clear whether the questions asked by Congress members would all necessarily come within the bounds of the pardon. I would assume, (without knowing for a fact, because I was a prosecutor for 36 yrs & not an advisor on the law pertaining to congressional hearings & witnesses), that if Paul had actually wanted information & not criminalization, he could have offered Dr. Fauci immunity. But he did not, which I think also betrays his intent.
I am not qualified to evaluate any of your statements about Ivermectin, but I would note that ivermectin is clearly identified as an anti-parasitic medicine & per these articles may be useful against tumors. However, extensive research showed that it was not an antiviral & did not cure COVID. BTW, several people in AZ took ivermectin on Trump's recommendation & died. Finally, it may be that no one in the U.S. has died of measles in 2026, but at least one unvaccinated child did die, unnecessarily, of measles in 2025. And if you want substantiation of anything I have said here -- google it.
As a recovering Evangelical whose church turned into an abusive cult, I have really enjoyed your work on Biblical topics since recently discovering your blog and I've shared some of them on social media.
And in your blog post, you're CERTAINLY correct to point out hypocrisy - there's more than enough of that in both political parties to go around (which is why I greatly dislike both parties).
But as an attorney I ask you...
Please stick to Biblical topics. Your legal analysis isn't very good. You said:
----
"Any competent attorney in America would have given the exact same advice Fauci received."
----
Eh... a 10 second Google search that anyone can do results in an A.I. response that includes:
----
"Generally, a person cannot claim the Fifth Amendment privilege regarding crimes covered by a valid pardon...".
----
The below linked article from 2025 specifically addressing the issue of whether Fauci and others that Biden had pardoned can plead the 5th Amendment in re: future legal issues, states:
----
"In his majority opinion [in the Supreme Court case Brown v. Walker], Justice Henry Billings Brown found that if a “witness has already received a pardon, he cannot longer set up his [Fifth Amendment] privilege, since he stands, with respect to such offense, as if it had never been committed.”...
In December 2020, Aziz Huq from the University of Chicago wrote in a Washington Post opinion piece that “pardoned people are by definition no longer in legal jeopardy for federal offenses, so they can no longer claim any Fifth Amendment privilege in that realm,” with Huq citing the Brown decision from 1896. “If they refuse to speak, the legislature can flex its contempt power: At one extreme, this can involve the threat of jail time, but it can also mean daily fines calibrated to the asserted wealth of a reluctant witness.”
And as a skilled researcher who spent 1500ish hours studying the COVID pandemic and Fauci in the first 18 months of the pandemic (the COVID mitigations killed my job and the Courts were closed for months)...
Well, your analysis of that isn't very good, either.
Fauci has a LONG history of being a "purveyor of dangerous and deadly medical advice". From 1988... and from the gay community [Warning: very course language because - at THAT TIME - the LEFT was VERY angry at Fauci]:
"It would all be laughable if children weren’t dying of measles in 2026 though."
----
Come on. A 10 second Google AI search shows:
----
"No have died of measles in the United States in 2026... Zero deaths have been recorded nationwide so far in 2026 by the CDC."
----
The fact that you think that these things are the primary things worthy of legitimate criticism...
----
"School closures ran too long in many places, early messaging on masks reversed itself and damaged public trust, the definitional games around gain-of-function research funding at NIH were lawyerly at best, and lawyerly answers from public health officials cost the whole field credibility it has still not recovered. That’s all perfectly legitimate criticism."
----
... tells me that you weren't following what was going on NEARLY closely enough to express an informed opinion on the subject. But then since it appears you get your news from one side of the debate, I'm not surprised. It's ironic, though... since you criticize others for getting their news from the other side.
In closing, this statement you made (which I assume is about Ivermectin)...
----
"His movement’s pharmacy of choice stocked livestock dewormer too."
----
... is JUST PLAIN SILLY and shows you haven't actually researched Ivermectin for even 10 minutes. It is FAR MORE than a "livestock dewormer" and a brief Google search for Ivermectin studies in humans would have shown you that even the NIH that employed Fauci has lots of information about Ivermectin use in humans and how it is a WONDER DRUG.
Come on. You HAVE to be better than that, Shawn. It isn't difficult to get information on Ivermectin use in humans. You just have to actually do a search for it rather than listening to talking heads.
From Fauci's NIH in 2011:
----
"Ivermectin, ‘Wonder drug’ from Japan: the human use perspective".
"Ivermectin has continually proved to be ASTONISHINGLY SAFE safe for HUMAN use. Indeed, it is such a safe drug, with minimal side effects, that it can be administered by non-medical staff and even illiterate individuals in remote rural communities, provided that they have had some very basic, appropriate training. This fact has helped contribute to the unsurpassed beneficial impact that the drug has had on HUMAN health and welfare AROUND THE GLOBE...".
----
Now I ask you... if NIH says a drug is ASTONISHINGLY SAFE for HUMAN use... and if it's been used in HUMANS in LITERALLY BILLIONS OF DOSES (easily obtainable information)...
Then why are you calling it a "livestock dewormer"?
---------------------------
Even after the controversy and representation of Ivermectin as "horse dewormer", Fauci's NIH has continued to study or discuss studies on Ivermectin use in humans. From 2024:
----
"Ivermectin: A Multifaceted Drug With a Potential Beyond Anti-parasitic Therapy"
"Ivermectin has become a versatile pharmaceutical over the past 50 years... Emerging literature has suggested that its role... may help treat inflammatory conditions, viral infections, and cancers. Ivermectin’s anti-parasitic, anti-inflammatory, anti-viral, and anticancer effects were explored. ..
Ivermectin is now recognized as a multifaceted therapeutic with diverse potential beyond its established antiparasitic role. Although its established efficacy in combating various parasitic infections in humans and animals remains important, its therapeutic uses extend beyond. The anti-inflammatory and immunomodulatory properties of ivermectin are promising for managing inflammatory skin conditions and potentially autoimmune diseases. Its promising antiviral activity against viruses such as COVID-19 and adenoviruses, although it requires further rigorous clinical validation, presents exciting possibilities. Moreover, emerging research unveils its potential as an anticancer agent, demonstrating antiproliferative and proapoptotic effects in diverse cancer cell lines."
More from NIH about how Ivermectin was viewed BEFORE the COVID pandemic controversy had FAUCI and others saying it was horse dewormer:
----
"Ivermectin, a potential anticancer drug derived from an antiparasitic drug"
"Ivermectin [IVM] has powerful antitumor effects, including the inhibition of proliferation, metastasis, and angiogenic activity, in a variety of cancer cells.... ivermectin promotes programmed cancer cell death, including apoptosis, autophagy and pyroptosis... Interestingly, ivermectin can also inhibit tumor stem cells and reverse multidrug resistance and exerts the optimal effect when used in combination with other chemotherapy drugs...
IVM is currently the most successful avermectin family drug and was approved by the FDA for use in humans in 1978. It has a good effect on the treatment of parasitic diseases such as river blindness, elephantiasis, and scabies..
IVM not only has strong effects on parasites but also has potential ANTIVIRAL effects. IVM can inhibit the replication of flavivirus by targeting the NS3 helicase; it also blocks the nuclear transport of viral proteins by acting on α/β-mediated nuclear transport and exerts antiviral activity against the HIV-1 and dengue viruses...
Since the first report that IVM could reverse tumor multidrug resistance (MDR) in 1996 [22], a few relevant studies have emphasized the potential use of IVM as a new cancer treatment...
Breast Cancer
After treatment with IVM, the proliferation of multiple breast cancer cell lines... was significantly reduced...
Gastric Cancer
Nambara’s study showed that IVM could significantly inhibit the proliferation of gastric cancer cells in vivo and in vitro...
Urinary System Cancer
Experiments confirmed that IVM could significantly inhibit the proliferation of five renal cell carcinoma cell lines without affecting the proliferation of normal kidney cells...
Hematological Cancer
In an experiment designed to screen potential drugs for the treatment of leukemia, IVM preferentially killed leukemia cells at low concentrations without affecting normal hematopoietic cells...
Why did you call Ivermectin a "livestock dewormer"?
Do better.
Just as you have reconsidered a lot of things about religion, I recommend you reconsider a lot of things about news sources, government, and the COVID pandemic.
Because the evidence is that your beliefs on those issues are as skewed as both yours and mine were on religion before we "deconstructed".
Let me begin this comment with several sincere compliments and one pretty severe "correction"…
First the compliments: I found your article articulate, informative, and intriguing. More importantly, it helped me understand a little more about the mindsets and worldviews of a demographic I need to understand more deeply. Which is of course one of the main reasons I subscribe to your work, and why I never delete your articles without reading them. I even keep a few in a file with your name on it for reference.
This article was the first I had heard of René Girard's scapegoat mechanism. A mechanism which I have seen in action and which now I have a name for and a resource for further study.
That said… I must take exception to the phrase "…a man whose whackadoodle theories about medicine…" Not because you used the wrong word. The word itself perfectly describes him. My complaint is with your spelling of the word, because whackadoodle with an H means something different than wackadoodle without the H…
You see, Wackadoodle (without the H) comes from the British slang "wack," meaning worthless, stupid ideas, work, or talk. Rubbish. So when you used it to describe RFK Jr.'s medical theories, you were technically accurate. His theories are indeed wackadoodle without an H. (see: https://www.dictionary.com/e/slang/wackadoodle/)
On the other hand, Whackadoodle (with an H) comes from the word whacky, meaning eccentric, quirky, wonderfully odd. This is the word I use when one of my kindergarteners or tutoring students does something wild, crazy, outrageous, and absolutely delightful. "You," I tell them, "are so Whackadoodle." It is a compliment of the highest order.
I know that this must seem a trivial thing to you and your readers. However, as the author of several books which use the word Whackadoodle (with an H):
— Teaching Logic in a Whackadoodle World — in which a pandemic-bound student learns to navigate the logical fallacies she finds all around her, alongside her tutor.
— Finding Sense in a Whackadoodle World — in which the same student and her tutor have a days-long conversation trying to make sense of civics, politics, and the educational system around them.
— Navigating Life Through a Whackadoodle World — in which the student and tutor examine the philosophy the tutor lives by, together.
As well as a Substack newsletter entitled "Navigating a Whackadoodle World," I am sure you understand why this matter would not seem trivial to me.
With much admiration and a twinkle in the eye…
Lynn Marie Sager
Thank you for the word lesson! That is so Whackadoodlely (with an H) amazing!
I am pleased you enjoyed it. Whackadoodle is such a fun word to say... seems sad to. let the "wacked" side claim it entirely because of the omission of an H...
I am wondering if you are an attorney? Because your legal analysis isn't very good. First, no attorney with any competence would cite google & AI answers to legal questions. Google is a search engine & AI is well known for getting attorneys & judges in trouble b/c it hallucinates. So no attorney with any sense would cite either as legal authority. In addition, any competent attorney would also do what we older attorneys used to call "shephardizing." That is the process of checking the subsequent history of a case for differences of opinions, disagreement with reasoning or discussions of different fact situations. I am not going to do that for you.
Nor would s/he cite a legal case w/o the correct legal citation, which I note you have done. W/o the citation, consulting the subsequent history becomes extremely difficult.
Regardless, assuming your legal citation is correct, your application is not. First, Dr. Fauci was testifying before Congress, not at a criminal trial. That would be a civil law situation, to which a pardon would not apply. One can be civilly liable even if not criminally convicted. In addition, it is not clear whether the questions asked by Congress members would all necessarily come within the bounds of the pardon. I would assume, (without knowing for a fact, because I was a prosecutor for 36 yrs & not an advisor on the law pertaining to congressional hearings & witnesses), that if Paul had actually wanted information & not criminalization, he could have offered Dr. Fauci immunity. But he did not, which I think also betrays his intent.
I am not qualified to evaluate any of your statements about Ivermectin, but I would note that ivermectin is clearly identified as an anti-parasitic medicine & per these articles may be useful against tumors. However, extensive research showed that it was not an antiviral & did not cure COVID. BTW, several people in AZ took ivermectin on Trump's recommendation & died. Finally, it may be that no one in the U.S. has died of measles in 2026, but at least one unvaccinated child did die, unnecessarily, of measles in 2025. And if you want substantiation of anything I have said here -- google it.
Here, here sir. Thank you.
As a recovering Evangelical whose church turned into an abusive cult, I have really enjoyed your work on Biblical topics since recently discovering your blog and I've shared some of them on social media.
And in your blog post, you're CERTAINLY correct to point out hypocrisy - there's more than enough of that in both political parties to go around (which is why I greatly dislike both parties).
But as an attorney I ask you...
Please stick to Biblical topics. Your legal analysis isn't very good. You said:
----
"Any competent attorney in America would have given the exact same advice Fauci received."
----
Eh... a 10 second Google search that anyone can do results in an A.I. response that includes:
----
"Generally, a person cannot claim the Fifth Amendment privilege regarding crimes covered by a valid pardon...".
----
The below linked article from 2025 specifically addressing the issue of whether Fauci and others that Biden had pardoned can plead the 5th Amendment in re: future legal issues, states:
----
"In his majority opinion [in the Supreme Court case Brown v. Walker], Justice Henry Billings Brown found that if a “witness has already received a pardon, he cannot longer set up his [Fifth Amendment] privilege, since he stands, with respect to such offense, as if it had never been committed.”...
In December 2020, Aziz Huq from the University of Chicago wrote in a Washington Post opinion piece that “pardoned people are by definition no longer in legal jeopardy for federal offenses, so they can no longer claim any Fifth Amendment privilege in that realm,” with Huq citing the Brown decision from 1896. “If they refuse to speak, the legislature can flex its contempt power: At one extreme, this can involve the threat of jail time, but it can also mean daily fines calibrated to the asserted wealth of a reluctant witness.”
----
https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/do-presidential-pardons-remove-the-fifth-amendment-rights-of-recipients
Would you care to revise your take?
I get the distinct impression from your article that you get your news from CNN or similar rather than Fox.
And that's not an improvement. They both completely suck.
And as a skilled researcher who spent 1500ish hours studying the COVID pandemic and Fauci in the first 18 months of the pandemic (the COVID mitigations killed my job and the Courts were closed for months)...
Well, your analysis of that isn't very good, either.
Fauci has a LONG history of being a "purveyor of dangerous and deadly medical advice". From 1988... and from the gay community [Warning: very course language because - at THAT TIME - the LEFT was VERY angry at Fauci]:
https://www.villagevoice.com/an-open-letter-to-dr-anthony-fauci/
You said:
----
"It would all be laughable if children weren’t dying of measles in 2026 though."
----
Come on. A 10 second Google AI search shows:
----
"No have died of measles in the United States in 2026... Zero deaths have been recorded nationwide so far in 2026 by the CDC."
----
The fact that you think that these things are the primary things worthy of legitimate criticism...
----
"School closures ran too long in many places, early messaging on masks reversed itself and damaged public trust, the definitional games around gain-of-function research funding at NIH were lawyerly at best, and lawyerly answers from public health officials cost the whole field credibility it has still not recovered. That’s all perfectly legitimate criticism."
----
... tells me that you weren't following what was going on NEARLY closely enough to express an informed opinion on the subject. But then since it appears you get your news from one side of the debate, I'm not surprised. It's ironic, though... since you criticize others for getting their news from the other side.
In closing, this statement you made (which I assume is about Ivermectin)...
----
"His movement’s pharmacy of choice stocked livestock dewormer too."
----
... is JUST PLAIN SILLY and shows you haven't actually researched Ivermectin for even 10 minutes. It is FAR MORE than a "livestock dewormer" and a brief Google search for Ivermectin studies in humans would have shown you that even the NIH that employed Fauci has lots of information about Ivermectin use in humans and how it is a WONDER DRUG.
Come on. You HAVE to be better than that, Shawn. It isn't difficult to get information on Ivermectin use in humans. You just have to actually do a search for it rather than listening to talking heads.
From Fauci's NIH in 2011:
----
"Ivermectin, ‘Wonder drug’ from Japan: the human use perspective".
"Ivermectin has continually proved to be ASTONISHINGLY SAFE safe for HUMAN use. Indeed, it is such a safe drug, with minimal side effects, that it can be administered by non-medical staff and even illiterate individuals in remote rural communities, provided that they have had some very basic, appropriate training. This fact has helped contribute to the unsurpassed beneficial impact that the drug has had on HUMAN health and welfare AROUND THE GLOBE...".
----
Now I ask you... if NIH says a drug is ASTONISHINGLY SAFE for HUMAN use... and if it's been used in HUMANS in LITERALLY BILLIONS OF DOSES (easily obtainable information)...
Then why are you calling it a "livestock dewormer"?
---------------------------
Even after the controversy and representation of Ivermectin as "horse dewormer", Fauci's NIH has continued to study or discuss studies on Ivermectin use in humans. From 2024:
----
"Ivermectin: A Multifaceted Drug With a Potential Beyond Anti-parasitic Therapy"
"Ivermectin has become a versatile pharmaceutical over the past 50 years... Emerging literature has suggested that its role... may help treat inflammatory conditions, viral infections, and cancers. Ivermectin’s anti-parasitic, anti-inflammatory, anti-viral, and anticancer effects were explored. ..
Ivermectin is now recognized as a multifaceted therapeutic with diverse potential beyond its established antiparasitic role. Although its established efficacy in combating various parasitic infections in humans and animals remains important, its therapeutic uses extend beyond. The anti-inflammatory and immunomodulatory properties of ivermectin are promising for managing inflammatory skin conditions and potentially autoimmune diseases. Its promising antiviral activity against viruses such as COVID-19 and adenoviruses, although it requires further rigorous clinical validation, presents exciting possibilities. Moreover, emerging research unveils its potential as an anticancer agent, demonstrating antiproliferative and proapoptotic effects in diverse cancer cell lines."
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11008553/
----
More from NIH about how Ivermectin was viewed BEFORE the COVID pandemic controversy had FAUCI and others saying it was horse dewormer:
----
"Ivermectin, a potential anticancer drug derived from an antiparasitic drug"
"Ivermectin [IVM] has powerful antitumor effects, including the inhibition of proliferation, metastasis, and angiogenic activity, in a variety of cancer cells.... ivermectin promotes programmed cancer cell death, including apoptosis, autophagy and pyroptosis... Interestingly, ivermectin can also inhibit tumor stem cells and reverse multidrug resistance and exerts the optimal effect when used in combination with other chemotherapy drugs...
IVM is currently the most successful avermectin family drug and was approved by the FDA for use in humans in 1978. It has a good effect on the treatment of parasitic diseases such as river blindness, elephantiasis, and scabies..
IVM not only has strong effects on parasites but also has potential ANTIVIRAL effects. IVM can inhibit the replication of flavivirus by targeting the NS3 helicase; it also blocks the nuclear transport of viral proteins by acting on α/β-mediated nuclear transport and exerts antiviral activity against the HIV-1 and dengue viruses...
Since the first report that IVM could reverse tumor multidrug resistance (MDR) in 1996 [22], a few relevant studies have emphasized the potential use of IVM as a new cancer treatment...
Breast Cancer
After treatment with IVM, the proliferation of multiple breast cancer cell lines... was significantly reduced...
Gastric Cancer
Nambara’s study showed that IVM could significantly inhibit the proliferation of gastric cancer cells in vivo and in vitro...
Urinary System Cancer
Experiments confirmed that IVM could significantly inhibit the proliferation of five renal cell carcinoma cell lines without affecting the proliferation of normal kidney cells...
Hematological Cancer
In an experiment designed to screen potential drugs for the treatment of leukemia, IVM preferentially killed leukemia cells at low concentrations without affecting normal hematopoietic cells...
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7505114/
So again, I ask...
Why did you call Ivermectin a "livestock dewormer"?
Do better.
Just as you have reconsidered a lot of things about religion, I recommend you reconsider a lot of things about news sources, government, and the COVID pandemic.
Because the evidence is that your beliefs on those issues are as skewed as both yours and mine were on religion before we "deconstructed".
I assume some of those wrote to you and said, without any sound reason or evidence, "Crucify him, crucify him."