JustRedPillMe

Claim 1: Epstein's autopsy noted the health of his prostate

Verdict: True.

• The report: New York City's Office of Chief Medical Examiner performed the autopsy on Jeffrey Edward Epstein on August 11, 2019, case M-19-019432. The internal-exam notes on page 6 describe a prostate that was present and abnormal:

• The same page says the vermiform appendix is surgically absent. The final-diagnoses list includes "REMOTE APPENDECTOMY (DATE AND INDICATION UNKNOWN)." It does not list a prostatectomy.

• The verumontanum is a ridge inside the prostatic urethra. The examiner was describing internal architecture of a gland that was still there, not a surgical empty space.

In plain language: Yes. The official autopsy describes a slightly enlarged prostate on the body examined as Epstein.

Claim 2: It is known that Epstein had previously had his prostate removed

Verdict: False.

• The viral post from @AwakenedOutlaw (February 25, 2026) treats prior removal as a known fact. The two files people keep circulating for that point do not show a prostatectomy.
• The LabCorp reports: An October 21, 2010 LabCorp panel (EFTA00727561) and a September 14, 2018 panel (EFTA00314056) both list "Prostate Specific Ag, Serum" at 0.7 ng/mL, reference interval 0.0-4.0. That is a detectable PSA inside the ordinary range for a man who still has a prostate.
• Under the result, both reports print the same interpretive note: after radical prostatectomy, serum PSA "should decrease and remain at undetectable levels," and the AUA defines biochemical recurrence as a PSA of 0.2 ng/mL or greater confirmed on a later test. That paragraph is LabCorp's standard PSA comment, not a statement that this patient had the surgery. The same wording appears on LabCorp's public catalog page for PSA test 010322.
• If Epstein had already had a radical prostatectomy, 0.7 ng/mL would not be a normal leftover. It would be a detectable PSA, above the 0.2 threshold in that same comment. The 2010 and 2018 values match each other. They do not match an undetectable post-prostatectomy result.

• The interview: DOJ file EFTA00432804 is a conversation among Jeffrey, a speaker named Richard, and Jessica. They are talking about testosterone replacement versus Viagra. Richard gives a general medical example, then immediately calls it an extreme example:

You can have high testosterone and still have a need for Viagra, because you don’t have a prostate, right?

Correct.

So that’s an extreme example. There are actually two examples…

• Richard is using generic "you," the way doctors say "you can have high testosterone and still need Viagra." Epstein agrees with the proposition. Richard then labels it an extreme example. That is not Epstein saying his own prostate was gone, and it is not an operative report.
• No operative note, hospital discharge, or pathology report of a radical prostatectomy was in the files reviewed for this claim. The autopsy that did record a remote appendectomy did not record a missing prostate.

In plain language: No. The circulated LabCorp line is stock PSA commentary, his measured PSA was 0.7 in 2010 and again in 2018, and the interview line is a hypothetical example, not a surgical history.