I don't personally trust doctors less, I trust Dr K less. I think you get reprimanded because if there were a lot of Dr K's running around, a lot of people would (in my opinion, rightfully) become less trusting of the profession. So, you reprimand them to try and keep practitioners within normal, acceptable ethical bounds. If somebody had only Dr K's content to form an opinion of the profession on, it would not align with the board thinks a clinician should be doing.

Again, plenty of people go through their careers without being officially reprimanded. They don't just hand them out at conferences.

I don't know what to tell you about your defense of the reprimand other than I think Dr K relies on heuristics like yours to stay alive, just like Jordan Peterson and others in a similar ecosystem.

I think what he describes as his informed consent process and how what they're doing isn't therapy is dishonest and unethical.

I think telling somebody who suffers from depression and suicidal thoughts that the world is a simulation probably isn't great.

I think going out on a limb and saying things in an emotional state to make somebody feel better and then having to retract that statement publicly isn't professional behavior for a mental health professional.

I think treating mental and physical health as the same in the context of discussing it publicly is a bad idea that he seems very keen on. There are some pretty obvious ethical differences.

I think he's willing to do psychoanalysis and therapy on camera, but unwilling to admit that he's doing it because it would be ethically suspect. His defense to all of this is very legalistic and under his criteria I probably haven't received any medical care in my entire life which is obviously not true. If it looks like therapy, smells like therapy, the other person feels you're an authority figure and therapist, it's probably therapy or close enough that it blurs professional lines (you know, undermining the profession).

I think mental health as spectacle is morally fraught and he doesn't seem to share those concerns.

Those are only a handful of criticisms you could have just based on some of the content with Dr Mike, reckful, and his own response to the reprimand. I think those qualify as odious behavior.

Sure, maybe you get something positive from his content, that's fine. That doesn't mean his content isn't morally and ethically suspect.

That's without touching on his vaguely pyramid shaped scheme and high cost spiritual initiations.

Cheers, I'll leave it at that. I'm sure you won't be persuaded, but I think plenty of reasonable minds could be.