Tamika never suggests that medical professionals shouldn’t be susceptible to these fraudulent claims. She simply states that the explanation that people who fall for such claims lack medical knowledge does not account for the medical professionals’ susceptibility.

Tamika never argues against the hypothesis that people who fall for the fraudulent claims lack medical knowledge. She just argues that, while the hypothesis explains the susceptibility of many people to such claims, it doesn’t explain the susceptibility of medical professionals.

Tamika doesn’t cast doubt on the expertise of the medical professionals. In fact, she explicitly says that they “have no lack of medical knowledge.”

Tamika argues that since two groups (”many people” and medical professionals) are disanalogous in important respects (one group lacks medical knowledge and the other has plenty), there must be different explanations for their similar susceptibility to fraudulent medical claims.

Tamika argues that the explanation that people lack medical knowledge “cannot be given” to account for medical professionals’ susceptibility to fraudulent claims. She argues that this explanation cannot be accepted because of clear evidence against it.